AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:17 am

Basically the VH-71 program was giving the US-101 bid a bad rap for issues not the fault of either LM or the US-101 airframe, and I would like to think this significantly ups LM's chances in v.2 of the CSAR-X.

Quote:
Executive Branch Strikes VH-71 Deal

Mar 17, 2008
Michael Bruno and David A. Fulghum/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report


Defense officials formally announced March 14 that the White House and Defense Department have agreed to a plan that maintains two VH-71 presidential helicopter replacement program increments, although the White House also has made “compromises” on Increment 1 requirements “to help with cost and schedule issues.”

As I understand it the VH-71 was giving the US-101 an inaccurate negative rap and that was what really sunk LM's bid the first time around, but I don't think especially with consult from the USN that they will be able to come to those same conlusions the second time around.

Quote:
“Because of cost growth issues and congressional funding cuts,” Increment 2 also is under a stop work order, they said. While the White House has not changed Increment 2 requirements for the 23 helicopters there, no existing medium-lift helo can meet the requirements.

“The original VH-71 program planned to rely on an existing commercial helicopter and make modest modifications,” Young explained.

“The Navy and industry team did not clearly realize the full implications of the White House requirements,” Young said, noting that the program sought to rely on exisiting helos that were modestly modified. “These issues were further complicated by the enforcement of Navy certification requirements on a helicopter designed to commercial aviation standards,” he said. Now, the Navy and industry teams are will complete a “substantial” redesign of the EH-101 base helo to meet Increment 2 requirements.

VH-71%20Deal" target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...%20Branch%20Strikes%20VH-71%20Deal

Quote:
On 29 March 2007, the GAO found that the Air Force had reasonably determined that Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego’s recent, seriously deficient performance on a highly relevant contract for a similar aircraft warranted a past performance rating of little confidence, notwithstanding that protester also had very good performance on another highly relevant contract.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...stems/aircraft/csar-x-protests.htm

If you look at how the original bid was scored, if LM had even a satisfactory score on "past performance" it may have even taken the award the first time around. LM even scored an "exceptional" rating on product support (ironic given their "little confidence" rating for past performance,) versus Boeing and Sikorsky's bids.

I'd also like to see the tangible and specific differences in alleged performance where the US-101 and H-92 were only given an acceptable block 10 performance rating but the HH-47 was rated "exceptional" - there is nothing that the HH-47 does in a CSAR role that the US-101 cannot do and in many ways do it with more reliablility and easier maintainability.

Given the huge MPLCC advantage of the US-101 which may even be greater now that LM wanted more accurate life cycles costs taken into account, combined with what should be an equal rating on past performance now that the VH-71 woes have been absolved, added with the combat experince thus gained by British crews in Iraq, I'm thinking the LM US-101 has a strong chance to get the award.

Throw in a Boeing KC-X award protest in direct opposistion to the USAF's wishes and who knows, perhaps they will no longer be so kind to the HH-47 2 hours and 58 minutes time to get the bird back into the air after C-5/C-17 transport; both the US-101 and H-92 could meet the goal of 2 hours and the HH-47 could barely make the absolute time limit!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/csar-x-award.htm
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9964
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:42 am



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
Basically the VH-71 program was giving the US-101 bid a bad rap for issues not the fault of either LM or the US-101 airframe, and I would like to think this significantly ups LM's chances in v.2 of the CSAR-X.

What exactly do you think Marine One is all about, negative rap? The European Helicopter will be the most high profile helicopter within the US and possible the world when it goes into service, regardless of who puts the pieces together. The presidential fleet is known for two a/c, Air Force One and Marine One, you decide how technical you want to get regarding the a/c or its call sign.

To follow your logic of best equipment for the troops, they should have purchased the EH-101 for the troops and selected something else for the Presidential Fleet, then you would not have all the negative publicity, the a/c would be in the fleet now proving itself and showing how effectve it could be as a presidential transport, and LM would also be well on it way of establishing itself as a helicopter supplier of the future.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-

Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:17 am



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):

lol... wow, be careful AirRyan, Lockheed is pretty far down your throat! You're endanger of choking!

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:42 am



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
Basically the VH-71 program was giving the US-101 bid a bad rap for issues not the fault of either LM or the US-101 airframe, and I would like to think this significantly ups LM's chances in v.2 of the CSAR-X.



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
As I understand it the VH-71 was giving the US-101 an inaccurate negative rap and that was what really sunk LM's bid the first time around, but I don't think especially with consult from the USN that they will be able to come to those same conlusions the second time around

So what does an overdress VH-71 helio project have to do with a helio with a real job, like the HH-47F has?

First you complain the CSAR mission is a US Army mission for the HH-47, then you want the Navy to pick the helio for the USAF (like they do for the Marines?)?

The VH-71, at $240M per helio (more than a KC-45, or C-17) is an overpriced peice of crap we cannot afdford to waste our few defense dollars on.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:57 am



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 2):
Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):


lol... wow, be careful AirRyan, Lockheed is pretty far down your throat! You're in danger of choking!

-UH60

AirRyan makes one long for the re-emergence of Keesge.  Wink

We know he doesn't work for Boeing. I wonder who he works for - LM or NG?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:09 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 4):
AirRyan makes one long for the re-emergence of Keesge.

We know he doesn't work for Boeing. I wonder who he works for - LM or NG?

Or Airbus?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:45 pm

There's no doubt at all as to your alleigances, chaps.

Yes the Chinook is a great heavylift helicopter, and I wouldn't want to see an RAF without two or three Chinook squadrons, but what it is not is a deployable, quiet, CSAR aircraft.

If you take off the 'not invented here', 'stars and stripes' blinkers, you'd perhaps see that if the CSAR-X requirement is genuinely looking for a CSAR/JPR platform, then the HH-71 is a far better bet than an HH-47.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:58 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
As I understand it the VH-71 was giving the US-101 an inaccurate negative rap and that was what really sunk LM's bid the first time around, but I don't think especially with consult from the USN that they will be able to come to those same conlusions the second time around.

LM's poor performance in the VH-71 program wasn't the only category where LM suffered...there were several categories where LM was assessed at higher risk than the contenders and GAO upheld these findings.

GAO reported the USAF's CSAR-X ratings as follows:

LMSI Block 0 Performance - Acceptable/High, SAC - Acceptable/Low, BA - Exceptional/Low.
t
Management/Schedule: LMSI - Acceptable/Moderate, SAC - Exceptional/Moderate, BA - Exceptional/Moderate

Block 10 Performance: LMSI - Acceptable/Moderate, SAC - Acceptable/Moderate, BA - Exceptional/Moderate

Past Performance: LMSI - Little Confidence, SAC - Satisfactory Confidence, BA - Satisfactory Confidence

Yes, LM's Product Support was rated: Exceptional / Low Risk, but Product Support doesn't measure past performance, it measures how well the vendor proposes to support a future product, not how they have done in the past...in other words, LM 'Talked' a good story in the CSAR-X proposal, but past performance on the VH-71 proved to be poor so this is why they got a rating of little confidence.

Like in all source selection actions...the MOST important issue is Performance...how well can the vendor meet the needs of the service? The USAF found and GAO agreed LM's CSAR-X Block 0 proposal was acceptable, but HIGH risk...the USAF did not believe LM could provide the required performance in the time frame allotted.

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I'd also like to see the tangible and specific differences in alleged performance where the US-101 and H-92 were only given an acceptable block 10 performance rating but the HH-47 was rated "exceptional" - there is nothing that the HH-47 does in a CSAR role that the US-101 cannot do and in many ways do it with more reliability and easier maintainability.

I'd like to see a public release too, but sadly for us to know these things, the vendors would have to release their actual proposals, because by law, the Govt cannot...so the vendors get to make claims in public of great performance, but they do not have to PROVE these claims...meanwhile, the only impartial people who know what the vendors actual propose say (the govt) are not allowed to tell the public if and where the vendors are misleading...Nice place to be for the vendors huh?

That said we can surmise why BA was rating exceptional and low risk in Block 0 because we can actually SEE the aircraft with the systems CSAR-X called for in production on the MH-47E/G today. All BA has to do to meet the USAF's requirements is build the Army SOF helicopter and paint it GRAY for the Air Force...while the other vendors have a LOT of R&D to do to integrate the systems their candidates do not yet have in service...R&D equals risk to cost, schedule and performance since there is no guarantee all systems will work as advertised on the first attempt...(what new things ever do?)

Since cost was the lowest ranked area....The USAF had to choose between paying $35 billion for a less capable machine with more development risk...or spending $ 3 billion more for a lower risk solution that was in service today known as the MH-47G. Doesn't seem like it was a difficult decision to me. Given the typical cost over runs on all programs, it's clear to see why the USAF wasn't "fooled" by a bid $3 billion lower than the other two contenders.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:21 pm

I have some sympathy with the view that "All BA has to do to meet the USAF's requirements is build the Army SOF helicopter and paint it GRAY for the Air Force..."

But that leaves you with an aircraft that's too big for CSAR, that's a poor winching platform, that's noisy and easy to detect, and that fits in poorly with evolving CSAR/JPR doctrine. It leaves you with an aircraft that takes too long to dismantle for air transport, and too long to reassemble and make ready for operations afterwards. You're talking about an aircraft that isn't as reliable, available and supportable as its principal rival.

Don't get me wrong. When you need heavylift, the Chinook is still peerless, but when you need to get in and out of a more confined area quickly and quietly, and when you might need to recover a casualty by winch, the Chinook's not the right tool for the job. I don't care how good a hammer King Dick make, if I need a screwdriver, it ain't what I need.

If you want low risk, then get Lockmart to build an RAF/AMI spec Merlin with ramp and folding boom and blades, CT7s, and BERP IV blades, and you have a similarly low risk proposition, AND A MUCH BETTER CSAR PLATFORM.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:02 pm

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 8):
Don't get me wrong. When you need heavylift, the Chinook is still peerless,

Not even, the Sikorsky H-53E's are far superior as will too the Kilo models I expect.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 8):
If you want low risk, then get Lockmart to build an RAF/AMI spec Merlin with ramp and folding boom and blades, CT7s, and BERP IV blades, and you have a similarly low risk proposition, AND A MUCH BETTER CSAR PLATFORM.

That's a good point because these "risk" ratings appear to be very subjective; if the US-101 is taking hits for the fact that it will be a US customized aircraft versus what is already known and flying CSAR in Iraq in the British Merlins, I don't buy the "high risk" assertions.

Nice new and compelling HH-71 website that points out that the US-101 is the ONLY aircraft in the competition currently performing CSAR...

http://www.hh71proven.com/
http://www.hh71proven.com/wp-content/themes/hh71-wp-theme/gallery/flying4.jpg

Quote:
See how the HH-71 is already saving lives.
Of all the CSAR-X contenders, only the HH-71:

Is designed specifically for combat search and rescue.
Has served under combat conditions in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is specifically designed to help CSAR crews navigate safely and survive in combat, day or night, regardless of weather.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 7):
Like in all source selection actions...the MOST important issue is Performance...how well can the vendor meet the needs of the service? The USAF found and GAO agreed LM's CSAR-X Block 0 proposal was acceptable, but HIGH risk...the USAF did not believe LM could provide the required performance in the time frame allotted.

But the actual performance of the HH-47 and US-101 are for practical purposes identical in terms of range, speed, and altitdue and to asses penalties on Block 0 aircraft I think is a factor heavily biased in favor of the HH-47 simply because the USArmy has been using the airframe for 40+ years - BFD about the short term, I'm not leasing the aircraft I'm buying them for the long haul.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 7):
That said we can surmise why BA was rating exceptional and low risk in Block 0 because we can actually SEE the aircraft with the systems CSAR-X called for in production on the MH-47E/G today. All BA has to do to meet the USAF's requirements is build the Army SOF helicopter and paint it GRAY for the Air Force...while the other vendors have a LOT of R&D to do to integrate the systems their candidates do not yet have in service...R&D equals risk to cost, schedule and performance since there is no guarantee all systems will work as advertised on the first attempt...(what new things ever do?)

I personally think the USAF was kind to the Boeing in the previous award because they knew they wanted to select the KC-30 over their KC-767 in KC-X and they were throwing them a bone - now with the gloves off and the truth outed on the VH-71 problems (not the airframe but a lack of allocated resources and over-ambitious goals) combined with the facts as Jackonicko points out (better maintainability, reliability and safety, acoustic signature, etc.) just as many expected even the first time around but all the more so now I believe the US-101 is the front runner as well as it should be.

[Edited 2008-03-19 16:12:33]
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:25 pm

The actual performance of the HH-47 and US-101 are "for practical purposes identical" in terms of range, and speed, but not altitude. The CH-47 is marvellous hot and high - better even than the Merlin.

Now I'd say that since the Merlin is proven in Iraq and is about to go to Afghanistan for IRT/JPR tasks, it's easily good enough - even with RTM322 and BERP III blades, but credit where it's due, Chinook's altitude performance is superb.

But the Chinook is also more susceptible to brownout, is hideously noisy, can't winch well, and can't operate in confined spaces.

(And Merlin enjoys a worthwhile edge when it comes to speed, too).
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
The VH-71, at $240M per helio (more than a KC-45, or C-17) is an overpriced peice of crap we cannot afdford to waste our few defense dollars on


Well, they shouldn't have requested changes to the airframe- for example- raising the height of the cabin door- not sliding- so the POTUS doesn't need to duck their head when leaving.

A RAF Merlin costs £24 million, give or take.

Add on all the kit, R&D and I can quite easily see the unit price increase.

[Edited 2008-03-19 16:52:06]
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:48 am

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 10):
The actual performance of the HH-47 and US-101 are "for practical purposes identical" in terms of range, and speed, but not altitude. The CH-47 is marvellous hot and high - better even than the Merlin.

It's interesting how the Royal Air Force lists their Chinooks and Merlins as both being capable of no more than 15,000', but what Akmed the terrorist don't know can only hurt him and that's a good thing in this case.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/chinook.cfm

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/merlin.cfm

Boeing lists the service ceiling of their MH-47E as only being 10,150' but we all know it's maxium altitude is closer to 20,000'.
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/mh47e/mh47espec.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../systems/aircraft/mh-47e-specs.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tems/aircraft/density-altitude.htm

With that said I'm still of the opinion that the three engined H-53E and H-71's would be a better high altitude performer becuase for what little you may sacrifice is sheer performance the added safety of a third engine means that in the event of an engine failure you still possess superior one-engine out performance over the H-47. And I reiterate, CSAR is not a mission soley confined to hot and high altitude climes.

[Edited 2008-03-19 17:51:11]
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-

Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:15 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 8):

But that leaves you with an aircraft that's too big for CSAR, that's a poor winching platform, that's noisy and easy to detect, and that fits in poorly with evolving CSAR/JPR doctrine.

I've always wondered about this argument. If the HH-47 is too big, then why aren't people extremely upset that the USAF used a larger helicopter than the HH-47, for over 40 years... the MH-53.

The MH-53 is signifcantly heavier, longer, taller, larger rotor span, louder on the decibel scale, and wider. And variants of it performed CSAR missions for 40 years. So why do people accept that this aircraft can perform the mission, but the smaller MH47, cannot?

And another thing about this whole absurd size argument. Do you people even realize the size of the US101? It's really not that much smaller than the MH-47. It's nearly as long and as wide, and it's taller. The idea that large helicopters cannot adequately conduct CSAR missions is historically false.

There are plenty of areas the other two competitors can claim superiority in... so why do people continue with this size argument? If just seems so freakin' devoid of any intelligent thought.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 8):
You're talking about an aircraft that isn't as reliable, available and supportable as its principal rival.

Before I make judgment on this, can you provide me with the reliability rates of MH-47s, both deployed and garrison environments? I would like to see if your facts for this statement.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 8):
and when you might need to recover a casualty by winch, the Chinook's not the right tool for the job.

Again, how do you figure?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 10):
The CH-47 is marvellous hot and high - better even than the Merlin.

Do you know why that is? I am referring the aerodynamic principle that makes the CH-47 such a superb high altitude helicopter.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 10):
But the Chinook is also more susceptible to brownout, is hideously noisy, can't winch well, and can't operate in confined spaces.

Again... brownout? When are the REAL arguments going to be made?

All helicopters face this... I have faced this! And I am telling you, there are no different degrees of brownout! It's all the same.

Luckily we have new technology to allow us to see through the dust. These photos were taken in zero vis, brownout conditions:











The system is light weight and affordable, and eliminates this entire argument.


-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:35 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Nice new and compelling HH-71 website that points out that the US-101 is the ONLY aircraft in the competition currently performing CSAR...

Yes Ryan we are all very impressed with the 'artists rendition' of what an HH-71 MIGHT look like one day compared to what an MH-47 actually looks like in service today....and we are duely impressed with promises of performance from those who wish to seek profit from their candidate being chosen that favors their pocketbooks.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
But the actual performance of the HH-47 and US-101 are for practical purposes identical in terms of range, speed, and altitdue and to asses penalties on Block 0 aircraft I think is a factor heavily biased in favor of the HH-47 simply because the USArmy has been using the airframe for 40+ years - BFD about the short term, I'm not leasing the aircraft I'm buying them for the long haul.

Again you offer a premise not in evidence...you support the claim of LM of nearly identical performance and dismiss the assessment of the USAF personal who actually measured all contenders proposals against the requirements. The Army has NOT been air refueling from the H-47 for 40 yrs, nor are they using a 40 year old EW suite (SIRFC) or TF/TA radar system, but they have had these systems in service for more than a decade.

Yes, the USAF is thinking short term, AND thinking long term...we have lost acft and killed people in demanding situations and your response is we shouldn't buy the Boeing because now even though it will give the rescue crews all the need..instead, we should leave these crew with inadequate equipment longer than necessary so that the EH-101 can "catch up".

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
With that said I'm still of the opinion that the three engined H-53E and H-71's would be a better high altitude performer because for what little you may sacrifice is sheer performance the added safety of a third engine means that in the event of an engine failure you still possess superior one-engine out performance over the H-47

I've quoted the actual SHP of these acft time and again on several threads, and you continue to pretend that EH-101 is an all powerful machine on par with the 53- Echo, when in fact, it doesn't come close to this acft or the H-47 power production.

The 3 engines of the MH-53E have a combined 14250 SHP, the two engines of the H-47 generate 9800 SHP, and the EH-101 3 engines make a combined max of 5160 SHP (1720SHP each). How does one have superior engine out capability when a SINGLE T-55-L-714 (H-47 Eng) makes more power than two of the EH-101 GE-CT-7 engines?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 10):
But the Chinook is also more susceptible to brownout, is hideously noisy, can't winch well, and can't operate in confined spaces.

Yes, we've all heard that the magical BERP blades eliminate brown out...but no one seems to be able to tell us why there is no video evidence of this effect...still photos prove nothing. Can't winch? And yet the USA Army has been doing hoist work of SOF troops from this platform for 20+ years...Noise? Noise, or lack there of hasn't stopped people from shooting down a great number of much smaller, quieter helicopters in Iraq in the last few years.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Luckily we have new technology to allow us to see through the dust

Rucker is right (As usual)...isn't the Phlash tested on an MH-53M last year at Hurlburt Fld something else?

There are other variations on this theme being tested as well (multi-spectral sensors etc), and we should remember, the requirement isn't for the pilot to 'see' the ground...but to land and take off again safely in 0/0 conditions...The USAF has also recently fielded an enhanced Altitude Hold and Hover Stabilization (AHHS) system on it's MH-53's that works with the AFCS and nav systems to allow a coupled approach to the ground in 0/0 visibility...Thanks to options such as Phlash and AHHS systems..."brown out" will be just a bad memory for future helicopter crews. (Good Lord willing)
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:45 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 14):
Army has NOT been air refueling from the H-47 for 40 yrs, nor are they using a 40 year old EW suite (SIRFC) or TF/TA radar system, but they have had these systems in service for more than a decade.

Aerial refueling on the Chinook goes back over two decades actually. Admittedly though, the early system was an ugly kluge with its cable stayed boom. I believe the internally braced model went in to service around 1990-92.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
And I reiterate, CSAR is not a mission soley confined to hot and high altitude climes.

Cetainly not, but a smart man plans for the worst case and hopes for the best. Hot and high is the worst case.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:20 pm

There are some echoes of the KC-767/KC-30 argument here.

The US101 suffers from a ‘Not Invented Here’ tag. It will, however, be built in the USA, and will reinvigorate Lockmart as a helicopter company just as Sikorsky and Boeing are backing away from the rotary business. Did you hear what Jeff P (CEO of Sikorsky) said about his companies future rotorcraft plans?

And though the HH-71 is based on about the best European helicopter since the War, I have every confidence that Lockmart will drive through significant improvements to what is already a world-beater, which already makes the classic Chinook look old fashioned.

That doesn’t mean that the Chinook’s days are numbered, by any means, because it retains an obvious niche advantage for heavylift missions.

Just as the refuelling mission has changed since the Cold War, rendering the once ‘right sized’ -135 too small, so too has the CSAR mission.

CSAR and JPR doctrine has changed hugely, and the old days of Vietnam-style CSAR packages, with dedicated RESCAP and RESCORT, have gone forever.

And when you were tearing up the jungle with Cobras, Sandys, escorting fast jets, and all the rest, in a package that was bigger than the best part of a small nation’s entire air force, the noise and size of your CSAR platform was less important than it is now.

Modern JPR tasks (and let’s face it, the USAF is buying a helicopter for the whole spectrum of JPR tasks, ranging from DSAR and CSAR to some SF extraction and support, with an emphasis on PR and CSAR) will not allow the use of ‘monster packages’ and will rely on a degree of covert penetration that has not previously been necessary.

And noise is critical here. The Chinook is both noisy and with a notably directional noise signature, the Merlin is quiet and with a notably non-directional signature.

You can hear (and feel) a Chinook coming from miles away, and as soon as you hear it you look straight into the right section of sky (or treeline), whereas you don’t hear a Merlin until it’s on top of you, and even when you do hear it, it’s not obvious which direction the noise is coming from. And its quiet and smooth inside, too, so the crew and rescue personnel will arrive better rested and better able to do their job than if they’d travelled the same distance in a Chinook.

Then we come to size. Just because the HH/MH-53 has been useful for 40 years does not mean that it is right-sized NOW. It isn’t. The idea that large helicopters can’t do CSAR may be historically false, but is currently correct, because the CSAR mission has CHANGED.

I can compare reliability of the Merlin and Chinook. In one specific operational theatre (Iraq), with one specific operator (the UK), the Merlin has routinely achieved availability rates in the mid 90s. The Chinook (and RAF Chinooks do better than the Spanish and the US Army in theatre) has usually achieved around 65% AT BEST.

Why is the Merlin better for winching? Because it has twin hoists (the HH-47 has one) and a bigger, wider door, which is better located.

And brownout is not “all the same”.

Brownout will, obviously, deprive everyone of their distant external references, but if you can sit in the clear middle of a doughnut like ‘ring’ of brownout, there are compelling advantages, and that is exactly what Merlin does.

And even with technology available to mitigate brownout (IR strobes and lasers do have some obvious limitations and penalties in some circumstances), the ability to sit in a bubble of clear air will ALWAYS be an advantage.

And frankly I don’t care whether or not there’s easily accessible video of the phenomenon on U-tube. There are plenty of published reports from RAF pilots (all liars, I presume?), I’ve had it explained to me excitedly in the bar at Benson (all drunken liars, no doubt?), and I’ve seen it with my own eyes (I’m a liar too, right?), and there are plenty of still photos (and the camera’s a liar, right?) which show the phenomenon for the unbelievers!

The RAF Merlin HC3 and HC3A (and the Italian Navy and Portugese air force CSAR birds) show quite clearly what a ‘Block 0’ HH-71 could be – and that’s a more useful, more suitable CSAR/JPR aircraft than the HH-47 and the idea that the HH-71 would need more time to ‘catch up’ is risible. The H-47 line is booked solid and running flat out, and there’s no indication that the USAF could get H-47s into frontline service appreciably quicker than it could get HH-71s.

If you want to support local industry, then surely you should do so by buying those helicopters where buying second best won’t harm the warfighter. I’m glad that you procured the UH-72 (the EC-145 is a fine helicopter) but an MD or a Bell would have done the job, and you’d have been creating and saving more American jobs. Similarly, I could have seen real merit in awarding VX to the S-92. It’s not nearly as good a helicopter as the US101, and would have had even bigger problems accomodating all the heavy kit, but I could see real logic in having POTUS regularly stepping in and out of a “Born in the USA” product. You wouldn't buy a Rolls Royce or a Mercedes as his official limo, would you, or an Airbus for Air Force One.

But CSAR/JPR is important, and better capability means more in this area. And for CSAR/JPR, the US101 HH-71 is a much MUCH better option.

However, I remain open to the idea that while it has always waved a CSAR flag, what the USAF really wants is an SF capability to rival the 160th’s and that CSAR is just a flag of convenience, that has been calculated as being the best way to get the money and the funding. If that is what the USAF wants, then clearly an HH-47H is the best alternative to the MH-47G.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9964
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:47 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
There are some echoes of the KC-767/KC-30 argument here.

Amazing statement that one, the US Airforce is correct when they select a current tanker based on a Airbus product, but wrong when they select a Boeing product?

So now rather that saying that the Chinook is too large and being told that the US 101 is almost as large, we now say that the Chinook is too large because the HH53 was too large therefore the smaller US 101 is right sized?

I believe that the Air Force is looking at the Lakota off the shelf product and seeing some issues they are trying to avoid. The power requirements after they put all their gear into the a/c exceed the the capability of the existing engines, even the air conditioner is struggling to keep up, one thing the Chinook has is loads of excess power which the other competitiors do not have. I'll wait to see the technonolgy in practice which eliminates brown out on a helicopter, as for the winch issue, I guess if it's not working now it can never be fixed right?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:03 pm

No.

Not European right, Boeing wrong.

Right to select the right aircraft for the job. Wrong to select the wrong aircraft.

The US101 is right because it's a better CSAR/JPR platform. Quieter (MUCH quieter), more deployable, more agile, a better winching platform, more reliable, more available, more air transportable.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:17 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
Did you hear what Jeff P (CEO of Sikorsky) said about his companies future rotorcraft plans?

No, What did he say?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
CSAR and JPR doctrine has changed hugely, and the old days of Vietnam-style CSAR packages, with dedicated RESCAP and RESCORT, have gone forever

Personnel Recovery doctrine (or dogma) has changed....gone are the days when the USAF focused solely on the recovery of 1-2 downed pilots, but the USAF still plans and trains to use massive armada's of RESCORT packages. A-10's now serve in the "Sandy" role when available as do other CAS platforms as required...also true is that CSAR will not wait for such a package to be assembled if the mission is time sensitive, threats permitting.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
You can hear (and feel) a Chinook coming from miles away, and as soon as you hear it you look straight into the right section of sky (or treeline), whereas you don't hear a Merlin until it's on top of you

As I mentioned in another thread...noise often irrelevant in CSAR work as proven in the rescue of "Hammer 34" in Serbia in may of 1999. The SOF flight of two USAF MH-53's and one MH-60 (quieter than Hooks) received Serb anti-acft and even SAM launches as soon as they crossed the boarder.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
I can compare reliability of the Merlin and Chinook.

The Merlin is a NEW acft and should have better reliability...the H-47's in theater you speak of are OLD acft and their reliability will suffer...should the HH-47G become the new CSAR acft, they too will be new and have better reliability, as the new H-47F and MH-47G are more reliable than their older D-model counterparts.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
Why is the Merlin better for winching? Because it has twin hoists (the HH-47 has one)

Nothing unique about the 101 dual hoists, since CSAR-X requires two hoists, so all contenders will have to provide two hoists...you have a point about the larger door, but the "hooks" have been hoisting people for 20+ years and no one's complained about this door being too small yet.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
And frankly I don't care whether or not there's easily accessible video of the phenomenon on U-tube. There are plenty of published reports from RAF pilots (all liars, I presume?),

Published reports...and yet NO video....hum....LM was quick to release info of the new VH-71 first flight, and the first new air refueling work...so why is it all we have are still photo's and "the word" of unnamed sources that the EH-101 doesn't "brown out"? If this were true...LM would indeed have this video on You-Tube since it would put all other contenders to shame.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
I'm glad that you procured the UH-72 (the EC-145 is a fine helicopter) but an MD or a Bell would have done the job, and you'd have been creating and saving more American jobs. Similarly, I could have seen real merit in awarding VX to the S-92. It's not nearly as good a helicopter as the US101

This will shock you...I AGREE. the EC-145 is a great acft and will be perfect for new army light scout needs (I was able to fly on the older BO-105's some years ago...holy crap was a wild ride!!! And I also agree the EH-101 is much more capable combat machine than the S-92, and probably will better serve in the POTUS support role (if they can ever settle down on that program)...I just don't see any evidence to support LM's claim that the 101 can perform the ambitious CSAR requirements better than the H-47.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
However, I remain open to the idea that while it has always waved a CSAR flag, what the USAF really wants is an SF capability to rival the 160th's and that CSAR is just a flag of convenience, that has been calculated as being the best way to get the money and the funding. If that is what the USAF wants, then clearly an HH-47H is the best alternative to the MH-47G.

I answered this last comment in some detail on the tanker thread but have one more thought to add...Money...The USAF secures it's own funding for programs and USSOCOM does the same...in other words, the USAF is securing funding for new CSAR acft and this has nothing to do with adding SOF capability...in fact, the last USSOCOM commander hated the rescue mission (and the USAF in general) and didn't want to be bothered with it. I think this was a mistake of SOF's thinking....but as such, the mission was moved back to the "big Air Force" little more than a year ago now and neither the mission nor funding stream is under the authority of SOCOM, so the CSAR-X program will not be a benefit or burden to USSOCOM anymore.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:09 pm

JPR and CSAR doctrine is moving away from the use of large packages and towards a more flexible and even ad hoc approach. Modern threats make covert (QUIET) approaches more appropriate, more often. Going back to one VERY imperfect rescue in Bosnia in 99 is an irrelevant distraction.

The Chinook is a dreadful winching platform - the downwash is terrific, the aircraft's auto-hover capability is negligible, and the door's too small and badly positioned.

Read what I wrote about the evidence about Merlin's brownout characteristics. So you are calling me and the operators who have described it as liars, and I suppose all the still photos are all photoshop trickery?

Even when new, the H-47 has NEVER demonstrated the reliability and availability that the Merlin has demonstrated, even with the older aircraft's maturity.

If you "just don't see any evidence to support LM's claim that the 101 can perform the ambitious CSAR requirements better than the H-47" then that's because you're wilfully ignoring the plentiful evidence that's out there, because you're blinkered by patriotism. The Merlin is a better CSAR machine because it's better suited to SAR, and better suited to quick, rapid deployability, and to covert penetration, as you can see in Iraq every day.

And that's why the current HH-60 operators prefer the Merlin, and they should know.
 
agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:35 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 20):

Read what I wrote about the evidence about Merlin's brownout characteristics. So you are calling me and the operators who have described it as liars, and I suppose all the still photos are all photoshop trickery?

I think there was a documentary on discovery where they showed that a while back. (If I don't missunderstand what you are talking about) They landed one on dry dirt and showed how there was a clear patch around the helicopter as it landed. There was also a segment where they sneaked up on a car and janded just in front of it if I remember correctly.
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:32 pm

The pictures below (can't remember where I got them from) show the 'donut' people are on about.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h210/jamesmcflid/C1002616d.jpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h210/jamesmcflid/C1010595.jpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h210/jamesmcflid/C1010594D-1.jpg
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:59 pm

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 14):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
With that said I'm still of the opinion that the three engined H-53E and H-71's would be a better high altitude performer because for what little you may sacrifice is sheer performance the added safety of a third engine means that in the event of an engine failure you still possess superior one-engine out performance over the H-47

I've quoted the actual SHP of these acft time and again on several threads, and you continue to pretend that EH-101 is an all powerful machine on par with the 53- Echo, when in fact, it doesn't come close to this acft or the H-47 power production.

The 3 engines of the MH-53E have a combined 14250 SHP, the two engines of the H-47 generate 9800 SHP, and the EH-101 3 engines make a combined max of 5160 SHP (1720SHP each). How does one have superior engine out capability when a SINGLE T-55-L-714 (H-47 Eng) makes more power than two of the EH-101 GE-CT-7 engines?

First off, your forgetting the fundamental law of probabilities: if I have three engines and in the rare but certainly plausible event of an engine failure I still have two more engines to keep my blades spinning - in a two engine helo I'm really sweating if I loose an engine because all I have left is just one.

Next, I think you're failing to remember the topic of rotary winged one-engine inoperative (OEI) flight characteristics: unlike aircraft who use no transmission to transmit their power helicopters are confined by the constraints of their transmissions.

http://www.hh71proven.com/wp-content/themes/hh71-wp-theme/images/img-ENGINES.jpg

The HH-47's T55-L-714A produces 4,868shp each but their transmission is limited to 7,500shp total or just 3,750shp each.

I remember back from my time in the Marine Air Wing USMC UH-1N's had two engines for reasons of safety over blue water ops and not because it offered more power (but the new transmission in UH-1Y will finally offer the engines to transmit more of their potential power.)

As far as engine performance for the HH-71, their slightly greater than the currently operating Merlins: Increment 1 VH-71's will use the GE CT7-8E with 2,500shp and increment 2 will have the CT7-8C with 3,000shp. USAF HH-71A's will use the same drivetrain as from the US-101 based VH-71 for HMX. Now I now the Merlins were limited to 5,580shp total and 3,714shp OEI, but I'm not sure what the upgraded transmission on the H-71's will be rated at but no doubt it will be significantly greater to handle the more powerful engines.

Still, we're talking an HH-47 with a MTOW of 54,000lbs going down to 3,750shp with one engine inop where as a MTOW Merlin (I know the V/HH-71 will be slightly greater) has a MTOW of just over 34,000lbs going down to 3,714shp with one engine inop: the HH-47 has a weight/power ratio of 14.4lbs/shp where as the Merlin (and the V/HH-71 will be even greater) have a weight/power ratio of just 9.24lbs/shp for a superior weight/power ratio not to mention the fact that you still have 2 engines running.

If you loose an engine during a hover in the HH-71A there is no chnage in performance and this is why the HH-71A offers the USAF a superior platform at the edges of their respective flight envelopes, not to mention greater safety for the crew.

[Edited 2008-03-21 17:03:21]
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:45 am

come on! You know that cold hard facts count for nothing against tired Boeing prejudice. And as for photo shopped pics illustrating RAF lies about a phenomenon that doesn't exist......
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:02 am

More on the delays of the award to maybe October as well as the obvious KPP change to even keep the HH-47 even in the competiton.

Quote:
CSAR-X Program Facing More Delays

Mar 21, 2008

Under a Defense Department Inspector General (IG) investigation and more intense source selection scrutiny, the Air Force's $15 billion combat, search and rescue replacement helicopter (CSAR-X) program is further delaying its planned contract award.

The IG announced its investigation about a month ago into the way the Air Force changed a key performance parameter (KPP) change for deployability (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 25).

Late last month the Air Force notified bidders Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky that the sixth amendment to the request for proposals (RFP) - in essence, a new RFP - will be released some time in the spring, with an award to follow in October. The service explained the delay by saying it needed more time to evalute the very detailed proposals. A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting on the program is likely to take place a month or so before the downselect.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...20Program%20Facing%20More%20Delays
 
agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-

Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:46 am

Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 22):
The pictures below (can't remember where I got them from) show the 'donut' people are on about.

Yes that's what I talked about. But the effect looked cooler on video

edit: Belive it was in the National Geographic "Megastructures: Super helicopters" they had a video of it. Not sure though

[Edited 2008-03-22 02:53:55]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11163
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:14 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Nice new and compelling HH-71 website that points out that the US-101 is the ONLY aircraft in the competition currently performing CSAR...

Oh yeah, there is another unbaised commerical.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
I personally think the USAF was kind to the Boeing in the previous award because they knew they wanted to select the KC-30 over their KC-767 in KC-X and they were throwing them a bone - now with the gloves off and the truth outed on the VH-71 problems (not the airframe but a lack of allocated resources and over-ambitious goals) combined with the facts as Jackonicko points out (better maintainability, reliability and safety, acoustic signature, etc.) just as many expected even the first time around but all the more so now I believe the US-101 is the front runner as well as it should be.

Hmmmmm, IIRC, the original award of the CSAR-X contract was BEFORE hhe RFP for the KC-X came out.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 20):
The Chinook is a dreadful winching platform - the downwash is terrific, the aircraft's auto-hover capability is negligible, and the door's too small and badly positioned.

Door badly positioned, and to small? IIRC, it is in the back end (like the HH-53, and CV-22?) and you can drive your Hummer aboard. The US Army, RAF, Australian Army, JSDF, and RNAF all found their Chinooks work and did everything they needed them too.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
Still, we're talking an HH-47 with a MTOW of 54,000lbs going down to 3,750shp with one engine inop where as a MTOW Merlin (I know the V/HH-71 will be slightly greater) has a MTOW of just over 34,000lbs going down to 3,714shp with one engine inop: the HH-47 has a weight/power ratio of 14.4lbs/shp where as the Merlin (and the V/HH-71 will be even greater) have a weight/power ratio of just 9.24lbs/shp for a superior weight/power ratio not to mention the fact that you still have 2 engines running.

If you loose an engine during a hover in the HH-71A there is no chnage in performance and this is why the HH-71A offers the USAF a superior platform at the edges of their respective flight envelopes, not to mention greater safety for the crew.

If you loose any engine on any helio, you are mission dead anyway. the mission will be aborted, whether it is a HH-47, or a HH71. So, what is your point? If staying airborne is a problem, the crew will jetison what ever they have to to reach the ground safely.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):
The IG announced its investigation about a month ago into the way the Air Force changed a key performance parameter (KPP) change for deployability

This deployment issues is eating some of you guys up. Do you realize you are only talking about 1 hour difference in time? While the mechanics spend 3 hours putting X- helio together, after it rolls off a C-17 or C-5, the crew is still in crew rest, for another 9 hours.

No helio is going airborne for 12 hours after it gets in country, period.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:25 pm

the door on the Chinook is well forward - and tiny - you don't winch off the rear ramp. And yes there are many very happy Chinook customers - its a bloody good heavylift helicopter But what it is not is a good SAR or CSAR platform.
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:12 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvZn6D6NndI&feature=related

See how quickly the dust dissipates as the Merlin touches down (3:18). For an idea of the 'donut' goto about 4:00.


About as good as you can get on Youtube. There are some Squadron ones knocking about. But I can't get hold of them atm.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:41 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 20):
Going back to one VERY imperfect rescue in Bosnia in 99 is an irrelevant distraction.

First off...I believe the EH-101 is fine acft, just not taken in by Lockheed's claim of being all things to all people.

Does imperfect mean "poor example because it doesn't support my theory" in the "Queen's English"? LOL

Fact is this is one many examples of the kind of work the USAF expects in future...facing a well trained, equipped and motivated enemy that doesn't need to HEAR you coming (They didn't need the hear the F-16 or the F-117 in Serbia either). This is why the CSAR-X (regardless of airframe) requires very robust self defense and counter measure systems and even required to sustain 12.7 mm fire.

The CSAR folks plan to fly into harms way knowing that acft of greater performance have been shot down in these areas, they expect to be seen, heard, and even take some hits from time to time. This example of this recent rescue doesn't praise the H-47 nor condemn the EH-101, its just a reminder of the metal of the men, (and women) who serve in rescue forces.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 20):
Read what I wrote about the evidence about Merlin's brownout characteristics. So you are calling me and the operators who have described it as liars, and I suppose all the still photos are all photoshop trickery?

I've read it...the same line as the LM propaganda...I simply ask to see some video evidence...Reagan said: "Trust, but verify" Photoshop trickery? Not necessarily, but could be a staged event...a light dusting of sand over a hard surface...or a photo after landing once the dust had settled, anyone who's been in a dust bowl knows how the sand behaves before, during and after landing and again before take off, and wouldn't take much at all to PROVE the magic of the BERP blades.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 20):
Even when new, the H-47 has NEVER demonstrated the reliability and availability that the Merlin has demonstrated, even with the older aircraft's maturity

US Army is reporting Mission Capable rates of greater than 85% on the new MH-47G, which is pretty much what an
HH-47G would be, so much for "never demonstrating reliability".

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 20):
If you "just don't see any evidence to support LM's claim that the 101 can perform the ambitious CSAR requirements better than the H-47" then that's because you're wilfully ignoring the plentiful evidence that's out there, because you're blinkered by patriotism. The Merlin is a better CSAR machine because it's better suited to SAR, and better suited to quick, rapid deployability, and to covert penetration, as you can see in Iraq every day.

Blinkers huh? Perhaps like the blinkers one displays when they speak with emotion and antidotal evidence as opposed to a careful review of the facts?

The USAF established an ambitious set of requirements for the next CSAR-X aircraft based on real world known conditions they expect to encounter such as 325 nm unrefueled radius, with a specified combat load (watered down to 275 nm in Blk 0) HOGE at 6000' PA at 35c, TF/TA radar, state of the art countermeasures and Comm/Nav gear.

None of these things are difficult to achieve on their own, but can be challenging to roll up into one airframe...unless of course it's all ready been done for you on another airframe....and this airframe is the MH-47G. The USAF CSAR folks read all the proposals and decided the H-47 would best suit their needs....who are we to question the judgement of those who will actually take these acft into combat?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:17 pm



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 29):
See how quickly the dust dissipates as the Merlin touches down (3:18). For an idea of the 'donut' goto about 4:00.

About as good as you can get on Youtube. There are some Squadron ones knocking about. But I can't get hold of them atm.

Thanks Highlander....that's closer than anything I've seen yet, but still not the greatest dust I've ever seen...or should that be not the worst dust I've ever seen?

Anyhow a GREAT video in all respects, hats off the boys and gals from 28 Sqaudron...!
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9):
Nice new and compelling HH-71 website that points out that the US-101 is the ONLY aircraft in the competition currently performing CSAR...

Oh yeah, there is another unbaised commerical.

What part of the facts do you disagree with? I think it's a very well worded site and that they should have had it up long before the original selection was awarded.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Hmmmmm, IIRC, the original award of the CSAR-X contract was BEFORE hhe RFP for the KC-X came out.

But KC-X was well under way at the same time as CSAR-X....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
If you loose any engine on any helio, you are mission dead anyway. the mission will be aborted, whether it is a HH-47, or a HH71. So, what is your point? If staying airborne is a problem, the crew will jetison what ever they have to to reach the ground safely.

But that's only half of the mission - what about the second half when the aircraft is supposed to get the "package" back to safety? Point is the three-engined aicraft still offers greater safety as well as superior one-engine inoperative flight characteristics. If the helo already picked up the "package" and were on it's way back and lost an engine, the HH-71 would offer the entire crew a higher probability of not necessarily just accomplishing the mission, but it would also offer the crew a higher probability of simply surviving.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 30):
US Army is reporting Mission Capable rates of greater than 85% on the new MH-47G, which is pretty much what an
HH-47G would be, so much for "never demonstrating reliability".

Wow, brand new aircraft and high mission capability - even the F-14 when they were new and the parts supply lines in full swing was readily easily maintained.
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:29 pm

A few more I found on the laptop

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h210/jamesmcflid/C1010593D-1.jpg
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h210/jamesmcflid/C1010596D-1.jpg


Curt- I'm not aware of which photos you're referring to where you're suggesting it could be

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 30):
a light dusting of sand over a hard surface

but the video certainly isn't. It was taken at FARP/drop off (there are several videos I've seen, one at a FARP with a good over head shot showing the O ring of dust).
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:14 am

Curt, those who will be taking these aircraft into combat (the existing HH-60 folk) strongly prefer Merlin. Your characterization of the CSAR role as including an expectation of taking hits is nonsensical. Current doctrine emphasises covert penetration.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:19 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
I can compare reliability of the Merlin and Chinook. In one specific operational theatre (Iraq), with one specific operator (the UK), the Merlin has routinely achieved availability rates in the mid 90s. The Chinook (and RAF Chinooks do better than the Spanish and the US Army in theatre) has usually achieved around 65% AT BEST.

WHOA. You are definitely going to need to provide your source for this information. And please don't say, "the boys in the pub."

Because this number - 65% - is totally bogus. Where on earth did you get this?

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
And even with technology available to mitigate brownout (IR strobes and lasers do have some obvious limitations and penalties in some circumstances), the ability to sit in a bubble of clear air will ALWAYS be an advantage.

Do you believe the USAF should scrap the V-22? It's an honest question. The V-22 suffers from very bad dust landing characteristics, and also has unbelievable rotor downwash. Both of those things you have argued should eliminate the HH-47 from the competition. How do you think it should play into the decision of using the V-22 for possible CSAR, which the Air Force will use it for.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 18):
more agile



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 18):
a better winching platform,



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 18):
more reliable



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 18):
more available

Can you provide us actual facts to back this up? You say you're a defense writer, so I expect you have access to a wealth of sources and information. How much more reliable, how much more agile, available, etc.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 28):
the door on the Chinook is well forward - and tiny - you don't winch off the rear ramp.

But won't the door on the HH-47 be different from the current CH-47 forward door? Boeing has designed a larger and wider door to accommodate for the need to winch.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 34):
Curt, those who will be taking these aircraft into combat (the existing HH-60 folk) strongly prefer Merlin.

Hell I would. But the H-60 and the H-101 are on totally different levels of existence. It's impossible to really compare the two on an equal footing.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:24 am

Availability figured for I'm rotary types in theatre were released in a JHC report and were given in answer to an mp's question In the House of Commons. I have them in my notebook after interviews with General Coward and they've been published all over the serious trade press. The figure forMs Chinook is the most generous I could find judged on the same basis as Merlin in iraq us army chinooks dont score as well as the figure given. My other claims for merlin are no more controversial ame are entirely based on what frontline operators of both types have told me, and from having flown both and seen both conduct JPR and IRT flying
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:28 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 18):
winching platform

 redflag 

One thing I will say against the Merlin is the position of the winch. It's a *u*king silly place to have it so close to the sponson. (See following video for what I mean)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d3pOmx0WeO8

The Danish one has the winch moved forward so it is a safer system to use.


The statements Jacko describes are the ones I've heard before from the mouths of the pilots themselves.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:50 pm



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 33):
Curt- I'm not aware of which photos you're referring to where you're suggesting it could be

I was referring to the video link you sent and other still photos that we've seen...great movie, but sadly the dust in question wasn't really bad enough (fine enough) to tell if this rotor system would actual disperse the really ugly stuff.

I agree the BERP blades show promise, but there are times early in the approach where clouds of dust similar to what we see with the EH-101 form around all helos...but then soon gets much uglier in the next few moments...in any case, Rucker is right, we're spending a lot of time one just one possible method to mitigate one effect of flying in the desert, while there are other methods available now that reduce this risk.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 34):
Curt, those who will be taking these aircraft into combat (the existing HH-60 folk) strongly prefer Merlin. Your characterization of the CSAR role as including an expectation of taking hits is nonsensical. Current doctrine emphasises covert penetration.

Jack...as I said before, the "masses" opinion is formed solely upon what they hear from those who seek to profit from the decision, and not from reading LM's actual proposal. This data was available only to the the members of the CSAR community who served on source selection board and their decision of which acft they believe would best meet their needs has been made.

It is not "nonsensical" to anticipate the same people who have shot down high performance fighters or engaged and wounded other troops would also have the means and motivation to shoot down the rescue forces as well.

In any case, I hear that the USAF is issuing yet another RFP (number six for those of you scoring at home), I wonder, what will change in the new RFP and if these changes will benefit any of the contenders?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:55 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 35):
How do you think it should play into the decision of using the V-22 for possible CSAR, which the Air Force will use it for

I've wondered myself from time to time should AFSOC and NAVAIR work the bugs out of the V-22 would the sheer speed advantage of this aircraft relegate the CSAR helo's to a civilian "life flight" role? After all, if you need an ambulance to take you to a hospital, do you want one that can travel at 50 MPH or 100 MPH?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:20 pm

Whats nonsensical is your characterization of those who favour merlin which is the senior HH-60 aircrew who flew the merlin during its many visits or who saw both types close up. The attitude on the squadrons and school is in favour of Merlin. As to brownout RAF pilots have described the advantage, I have told you about it (based on first hand experience) and you have seen photos from on theatre. The latter are MOT faked or set up and the phenomenon enhances safety and reduces sand ingestion into the engine intakes and it works with exactly the type of sand encountered on the real world. The merlin is not all things to all people but it is a superior Platform for both SAR and CSAR
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:28 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
The HH-47's T55-L-714A produces 4,868shp each but their transmission is limited to 7,500shp total or just 3,750shp each.

Yes...all acft with gearboxes are at some point torque limited and helo's are no exception. I don't know if your numbers are correct for the H-47 and H-101 but presuming they are...you didn't mention the H-47 divides the combined 9800 SHP between two transmissions making nothing but lift from both rotor systems without giving up 20% of this power to drive an anti-torque tail rotor system, and staying well below the 7500SHP you state is the limit.

I've heard Ft Rucker "Hook Drivers" tell tails of losing an engine with a 20K lb load on the hook and see no loss of performance under power from only the remaining engine. Sounds hard to believe to me too, but may just show how overpowered this aircraft is.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
As far as engine performance for the HH-71, their slightly greater than the currently operating Merlins: Increment 1 VH-71's will use the GE CT7-8E with 2,500shp and increment 2 will have the CT7-8C with 3,000shp. USAF HH-71A's will use the same drivetrain as from the US-101 based VH-71 for HMX. Now I now the Merlins were limited to 5,580shp total and 3,714shp OEI, but I'm not sure what the upgraded transmission on the H-71's will be rated at but no doubt it will be significantly greater to handle the more powerful engines.

What's up with the certification of the 8C, was supposed to happen last year wasn't it?

Yes, new drive train components will be needed to utilize this added power...these are just more specific examples of why the EH-101 was rated as higher risk than the H-47....not just a lot of intensive avionics installations, but a lot of basic metal cutting to improve power for the basic airframe as well.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
Still, we're talking an HH-47 with a MTOW of 54,000lbs going down to 3,750shp with one engine inop where as a MTOW Merlin (I know the V/HH-71 will be slightly greater) has a MTOW of just over 34,000lbs going down to 3,714shp with one engine inop: the HH-47 has a weight/power ratio of 14.4lbs/shp where as the Merlin (and the V/HH-71 will be even greater) have a weight/power ratio of just 9.24lbs/shp for a superior weight/power ratio not to mention the fact that you still have 2 engines running.

You presume the H-47 would be at MTOW when losing said engine...this presumes the HH-47 configured as the USAF requests would weigh 54000#...but what if it doesn't?

Again, we've not seen any vendors proposals so we can only guess at what's in them, but we do know the empty weight of an MH-47 is approx 33K...add 13600# (max fuel of the "fat tanks") we're at 46600#, IF the acft NEEDS full tanks to achieve the spec mission. Add 1600# for the crew of 5 and 3 PJ's and the standard combat load package of "the too much crap" you spoke of was set at 2900# and we have a grand total of just over 51000#, not 54000...a hefty load to be sure, but not 54K and of course most of the 13K of fuel is burning off as you go so the acft is getting considerably lighter.

Sitting back and looking at all this "crap"...I wonder how the EH-101 with a MTOW of 34K can get off the ground at all when required to carry all the systems (DIRCM, weapons, armor etc), full fuel, 8 people and mission equipment?
 
highlander0
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:29 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:22 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 41):
I wonder how the EH-101 with a MTOW of 34K can get off the ground at all when required to carry all the systems (DIRCM, weapons, armor etc), full fuel, 8 people and mission equipment?

Well the whirly bit on top goes faster & faster...


 duck   duck   duck 
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:59 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 41):
Again, we've not seen any vendors proposals so we can only guess at what's in them, but we do know the empty weight of an MH-47 is approx 33K...add 13600# (max fuel of the "fat tanks") we're at 46600#, IF the acft NEEDS full tanks to achieve the spec mission. Add 1600# for the crew of 5 and 3 PJ's and the standard combat load package of "the too much crap" you spoke of was set at 2900# and we have a grand total of just over 51000#, not 54000...a hefty load to be sure, but not 54K and of course most of the 13K of fuel is burning off as you go so the acft is getting considerably lighter.

Sitting back and looking at all this "crap"...I wonder how the EH-101 with a MTOW of 34K can get off the ground at all when required to carry all the systems (DIRCM, weapons, armor etc), full fuel, 8 people and mission equipment?

But by that argument this would only be a single source contract with Boeing the only one who can offer a heavy lift platform. And at 51,000lbs of "crap" to save just a few hundred pounds of crewmembers, one wonders how the HH-60's have been able to make due as long as they have thus far?! (i.e. I don't buy the need for a heavy lift helo in CSAR ops.)

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 41):
Yes, new drive train components will be needed to utilize this added power...these are just more specific examples of why the EH-101 was rated as higher risk than the H-47....not just a lot of intensive avionics installations, but a lot of basic metal cutting to improve power for the basic airframe as well.

And by that logic the USAF should have just ordered new F-15's becaue they were tried and true, as opposed to those fancy new high-tech F-22's with all it's associated risk involved!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:02 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43):
But by that argument this would only be a single source contract with Boeing the only one who can offer a heavy lift platform.

Well just what category does the EH-101 fall into?

I mean, it's certainly not a medium lift helicopter. What I fly is a medium lift helicopter - and my max gross doesn't even come close to the EH-101. So if it's not a medium, and it's not a heavy, what the heck is it?

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:11 pm

"So if it's not a medium, and it's not a heavy, what the heck is it?"

Who cares?

Are you now arguing against it because it doesn't fit your own personal definition of medium or heavy?

I view it as a medium helicopter, personally, but to make it easier for you:

It's ideally sized for CSAR, that's what.

Nice big door, nice spacious cabin, a GREAT SAR machine (go ask the Danes, Portugese, and Canadians, and indeed the Algerians and Malaysians who have recently evaluated it) combat proven in Iraq, and just what the HH-60 boys want. And every single one of those that I've spoken to who has flown it or seen it up close rates it as being better (for their mission) than the Chinook.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:13 am



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 44):
Well just what category does the EH-101 fall into?

I mean, it's certainly not a medium lift helicopter. What I fly is a medium lift helicopter - and my max gross doesn't even come close to the EH-101. So if it's not a medium, and it's not a heavy, what the heck is it?

Even Boeing refers to the H-47 as heavy-lift, and their H-46 as their medium lift helo - but we can do a handful of different things in the H-46 than you can in the H-60 with it's different cabin dimersions even though their MTOW's are relatively similar.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 45):
"So if it's not a medium, and it's not a heavy, what the heck is it?"

Who cares?

Are you now arguing against it because it doesn't fit your own personal definition of medium or heavy?

I agree, we're arguing semantics at this point.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 45):
It's ideally sized for CSAR, that's what.

And that is what I argue - the H-92 or the H-101 are of the proper dimensions but the H-47 are just too large. Remember, the CV-22's are replacing the MH-53E/J's and it will be CSAR-X which will be replacing the HH-60's - now how silly would it be for the USArmy to replace their H-60's with H-47's?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:03 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 40):
Whats nonsensical is your characterization of those who favour merlin which is the senior HH-60 aircrew who flew the merlin during its many visits or who saw both types close up

It was indeed the senior rescue crewmen who served on the source selection team...and these are the people who attended all THREE vendor's flight demonstrations at Nellis AFB NV, the EH-101 tear down/build up demo at RAF Benson, the S-92 tear down at SAC's West Palm Beach FL facility and H-47 tear down at a Boeing partner facility Delaware not far from the Boeing H-47 plant in Philadelphia PA.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:17 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 48):
and H-47 tear down at a Boeing partner facility Delaware not far from the Boeing H-47 plant in Philadelphia PA.

This was most likely at the Boeing flight test facility in Wilmington. Home to what has to be the tallest helicopter hangar in the world, built for the HLH.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Navy VH-71 Plan Back On Track: Affect On CSAR-X?

Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:52 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 45):
Who cares?

Hey. Calm down. I was asking a legitimate question, there is no need for you to be rude.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 45):
Are you now arguing against it because it doesn't fit your own personal definition of medium or heavy?

No I was not arguing anything. I was asking an honest question, one that didn't deserve you to get snippy over. And the question certainly didn't warrant you having to cop an attitude. I understand you're new, and all, but there's no need to flush manners and politeness down the drain.


Quoting AirRyan (Reply 46):
Even Boeing refers to the H-47 as heavy-lift, and their H-46 as their medium lift helo - but we can do a handful of different things in the H-46 than you can in the H-60 with it's different cabin dimersions even though their MTOW's are relatively similar.

Look, I was honestly interested. I wouldn't call the EH-101 a heavy, but it's certainly not a pure medium lift, either. It's somewhere in between. And before our newest member gets another thorn in his paw, I have no issue with purchasing the EH-101. I think some of the arguments made against the HH-47 are rather bogus, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the awesome potential in the EH-101.

It is an honest question that I am curious about. I certainly don't think it's worth someone getting hostile, about.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos