German Heavy Lift Helicopter Replacement Program News and Discussion Thread

texl1649 · Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:29 pm

LOL, I get the sarcasm, but I still don’t see how that planform can fit into a similar footprint. Just a few posts up folks were pointing out how one or another option could fit in an A-400M etc.

WIederling · Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:43 am

texl1649 wrote:
LOL, I get the sarcasm, but I still don’t see how that planform can fit into a similar footprint. Just a few posts up folks were pointing out how one or another option could fit in an A-400M etc.

The Racer / X3 or back when Fairy Rotodyne layout would not need parasite transport.
They are fast enough to do longer range transfers on their own.
you don't fit a C130 into an AN124 for dispatch to another region either :-)

keesje · Sun Oct 04, 2020 4:45 pm

WIederling wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
LOL, I get the sarcasm, but I still don’t see how that planform can fit into a similar footprint. Just a few posts up folks were pointing out how one or another option could fit in an A-400M etc.

The Racer / X3 or back when Fairy Rotodyne layout would not need parasite transport.
They are fast enough to do longer range transfers on their own.
you don't fit a C130 into an AN124 for dispatch to another region either

Indeed. And the higher speed, ore level aoa would make inflight refueling ore suitable for this large helicopter, e.g. by an A400M.

I think several compound concept have been studied over the decades, Where Sikorsky and Boeing (& Kamov) seem to be moving pusher propellors in the tail combined with counterrotating main rotors, and Airbus Helicopter dual props, wings and single rotor and Leonardo transitional rotors and wings. All no dount have their (dis)advantages.

https://www.avxaircraft.com/

WIederling · Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:55 am

keesje wrote:
And the higher speed, ore level aoa would make inflight refueling ore suitable for this large helicopter, e.g. by an A400M.

I'd guess that helo refueling is strongly dependent on how far the rotor disk extends beyond the fueling probe.
( and probably how high above the probe it sits.)
larger disk -> more issues. i.e. a heavy lift helo of any ilk will have more pronounced probs.

Ozair · Tue Oct 06, 2020 9:35 pm

Boeing and Sikorsky are still pursuing the German Heavy Lift competition and the German MoD is still intent on fielding a replacement with change requirements to come out perhaps by 2022.

Interesting that the speculation is that both the CH-47 and CH-53 were in the EUR10 billion range as most of us would have expected the CH-47 to come in significantly cheaper. Perhaps the requirements were built around payload numbers at specific ranges and therefore less CH-53s were able to accomplish the same as more CH-47s?

Competing teams continue to pursue German CH-53 replacement after tender cancellation

The two teams competing for the Luftwaffe’s future Schwerer Transporthubschrauber (Heavy Transport Helicopter, STH) requirement still plan to offer their helicopters after the Bundeswehr cancelled the tender. The German Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced in a press release on 29 September that the tender was cancelled because it “would be unlikely to be realised within the allocated budget while meeting all requirements”.

The Bundestag, the German parliament, committed EUR5.6 billion (USD6.6 billion) to the STH programme in November 2018, but Janes understands that the two competing proposals – the Boeing H-47 and Sikorsky CH-53K – would have cost about EUR10 billion. Neither company officially confirmed this to Janes, with Rheinmetall, which is the chief partner in the Sikorsky team offering the CH-53K, on 2 October citing public procurement law and Boeing saying on 1 October that it “cannot comment on live commercial matters and ongoing negotiations with the BAAINBw [Bundesamt für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr, Germany’s Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support]”.

In its press release, the German MoD said the STH requirement would be re-examined but that a contract would not be ready in 2021, although the aim is still to replace the CH-53G, the service life of which ends in 2030, “in a timely manner”. The ministry added, ”the STH project is of very high priority for the Bundeswehr, as air transport is of paramount importance for the mobility and responsiveness of the armed forces, as well as for humanitarian and support services. The project will therefore be continued with changed specifications”.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ncellation

ThePointblank · Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:14 pm

Ozair wrote:
Boeing and Sikorsky are still pursuing the German Heavy Lift competition and the German MoD is still intent on fielding a replacement with change requirements to come out perhaps by 2022.

Interesting that the speculation is that both the CH-47 and CH-53 were in the EUR10 billion range as most of us would have expected the CH-47 to come in significantly cheaper. Perhaps the requirements were built around payload numbers at specific ranges and therefore less CH-53s were able to accomplish the same as more CH-47s?

Competing teams continue to pursue German CH-53 replacement after tender cancellation

The two teams competing for the Luftwaffe’s future Schwerer Transporthubschrauber (Heavy Transport Helicopter, STH) requirement still plan to offer their helicopters after the Bundeswehr cancelled the tender. The German Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced in a press release on 29 September that the tender was cancelled because it “would be unlikely to be realised within the allocated budget while meeting all requirements”.

The Bundestag, the German parliament, committed EUR5.6 billion (USD6.6 billion) to the STH programme in November 2018, but Janes understands that the two competing proposals – the Boeing H-47 and Sikorsky CH-53K – would have cost about EUR10 billion. Neither company officially confirmed this to Janes, with Rheinmetall, which is the chief partner in the Sikorsky team offering the CH-53K, on 2 October citing public procurement law and Boeing saying on 1 October that it “cannot comment on live commercial matters and ongoing negotiations with the BAAINBw [Bundesamt für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr, Germany’s Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support]”.

In its press release, the German MoD said the STH requirement would be re-examined but that a contract would not be ready in 2021, although the aim is still to replace the CH-53G, the service life of which ends in 2030, “in a timely manner”. The ministry added, ”the STH project is of very high priority for the Bundeswehr, as air transport is of paramount importance for the mobility and responsiveness of the armed forces, as well as for humanitarian and support services. The project will therefore be continued with changed specifications”.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ncellation

I suspect that the version of the CH-47 the Germans were looking at was a fairly customized version, probably with stuff such as a EO/IR turret, extended range fuel tanks, more advanced countermeasures suite, more advanced flight control system, etc.

Revelation · Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:29 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
I suspect that the version of the CH-47 the Germans were looking at was a fairly customized version, probably with stuff such as a EO/IR turret, extended range fuel tanks, more advanced countermeasures suite, more advanced flight control system, etc.

Sounds like a repeat of A400M where DE wanted Mercedes level features but expected VW pricing.

RJMAZ · Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:41 am

keesje wrote:
I think several compound concept have been studied over the decades, Where Sikorsky and Boeing (& Kamov) seem to be moving pusher propellors in the tail combined with counterrotating main rotors, and Airbus Helicopter dual props, wings and single rotor and Leonardo transitional rotors and wings. All no dount have their (dis)advantages.

The main disadvantage is physics.

When creating lift it is more efficient to have a larger prop moving slow than a small prop moving fast. A good way to see this is how much engine power is required to lift a certain weight. The Chinook can fly at 22.6t with 7000kw where as the V-22 can fly at 21.5t with 9200kw.

Your idea has a larger and more complex driveline and increases the empty weight as a percentage of the max takeoff weight. This cuts into the payload and fuel available and offsets all of the efficiency advantages. The V-22 is again a good example here. A Chinook can take off vertical over 100% above its empty weight. The V-22 can only take off less than 50% above its empty weight. On a short 200nm hop the Chinook can vertically lift 80% more than the V-22 with less thrust.

The V-22 payload range curve is much much flatter. But it takes long stage lengths and light payloads for it to have an advantage. A tilt rotor can never match the short hop vertical lift of a normal helicopter design.

There are multiple ways to get a job done.
Land a C-27J on a very poor runway 100nm from the front line and use Blackhawks.
Land a C-130J on a poor runway 200nm from the front line and use Chinooks.
Land a A400m 400nm from the front line and use a crazy compound solution or require twice as many Chinooks.
Land a C-17 800nm from the front line and use a complex quad tilt rotor solution.

Each solution has advantages and disadvantages. A small tactical prop airlifter and conventional helicopters will nearly always have the least disadvantages. Your idea scores the worst which is why it has been "studied over decades".

keesje · Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:07 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
I think several compound concept have been studied over the decades, Where Sikorsky and Boeing (& Kamov) seem to be moving pusher propellors in the tail combined with counterrotating main rotors, and Airbus Helicopter dual props, wings and single rotor and Leonardo transitional rotors and wings. All no dount have their (dis)advantages.

The main disadvantage is physics.

When creating lift it is more efficient to have a larger prop moving slow than a small prop moving fast. A good way to see this is how much engine power is required to lift a certain weight. The Chinook can fly at 22.6t with 7000kw where as the V-22 can fly at 21.5t with 9200kw.

Your idea has a larger and more complex driveline and increases the empty weight as a percentage of the max takeoff weight. This cuts into the payload and fuel available and offsets all of the efficiency advantages. The V-22 is again a good example here. A Chinook can take off vertical over 100% above its empty weight. The V-22 can only take off less than 50% above its empty weight. On a short 200nm hop the Chinook can vertically lift 80% more than the V-22 with less thrust.

The V-22 payload range curve is much much flatter. But it takes long stage lengths and light payloads for it to have an advantage. A tilt rotor can never match the short hop vertical lift of a normal helicopter design.

There are multiple ways to get a job done.
Land a C-27J on a very poor runway 100nm from the front line and use Blackhawks.
Land a C-130J on a poor runway 200nm from the front line and use Chinooks.
Land a A400m 400nm from the front line and use a crazy compound solution or require twice as many Chinooks.
Land a C-17 800nm from the front line and use a complex quad tilt rotor solution.

Each solution has advantages and disadvantages. A small tactical prop airlifter and conventional helicopters will nearly always have the least disadvantages. Your idea scores the worst which is why it has been "studied over decades".

I think some feel that in terms of drive train (length), gearboxes, weight, accessibility and complexity "a crazy compound solution" might not be such a bad idea after all.

Recently we have seen some patents flowing through and official roll out of the RACER at Istres seems close.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis ... 321526.pdf

I think an A400M would more be the tanker topping up such a compound helicopter than moving it somewhere. Times and requirements changed over the last 50 years. E.g. forward troops might rely more on fire support from UAV's with precision ammo than taking their own howitzer with them.

texl1649 · Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:59 pm

It’s not that the RACER can’t be fast/effective in getting 6 people or so 100 miles or more across space, it’s that it doesn’t have the lifting efficiency to translate into a CH-47 peer on a cost effective basis. I also don’t see how that planform works, and if it did, some US contractor or another would also be in the finalist stage to replace the Blackhawk using it.

mxaxai · Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:19 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Land a C-27J on a very poor runway 100nm from the front line and use Blackhawks.
Land a C-130J on a poor runway 200nm from the front line and use Chinooks.
Land a A400m 400nm from the front line and use a crazy compound solution or require twice as many Chinooks.
Land a C-17 800nm from the front line and use a complex quad tilt rotor solution.

Each solution has advantages and disadvantages. A small tactical prop airlifter and conventional helicopters will nearly always have the least disadvantages. Your idea scores the worst which is why it has been "studied over decades".

Or you could refuel the Chinooks from a KC-130J or A400M and fly the 400nm without a "crazy compound solution".

However, 400nm is very far. All of Germany fits into a 250nm radius circle. An 800nm radius puts most of Europe into reach. You will find a runway that can handle an A400M, and perhaps even a C-17, within 200nm of any given battlefield. Huge range is only required when you need to cross oceans or for special ops that aren't permitted to use nearby airfields.

Finally, FWIW, "crazy compound solutions" haven't just been studied for decades; many have been built and it seems likely that at least one will be adopted by the USA soon. I don't think a Chinook or a V-22 is less "crazy" than the pusher propeller. Russia has the Ka-50/52 coaxial rotor, another complex design. The primary motivation of all of these has been speed, though, not payload capacity.

texl1649 · Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:22 pm

A pusher prop probably makes sense up to a certain cargo capacity (I don’t know where, but somewhere around where SB-1, though LMT claims they will use it for the JMR-TD as a baseline, which is interesting). The US Army (I think, as of now) expects JMR-heavy (Chinook replacement) to come around 2035, but Boeing thinks they can hold it off until 2060.

I bring up the US side merely as a position to consider; Boeing is claiming they’ll keep the Chinook basically in production for at least 20-25 more years via engine/other upgrades (the plant being located in Pennsylvania makes this pretty believable, as a key electoral battleground annually). The AW609/V-280 don’t seem to have prompted any of the prime contractors involved to invest in even a marketing/PR study showing a larger quad that should be developed in this class. Airbus certainly has not shown such a sketch/interest via RACER.

RJMAZ · Wed Oct 07, 2020 9:35 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Or you could refuel the Chinooks from a KC-130J or A400M and fly the 400nm without a "crazy compound solution".

That is why I said twice as many Chinooks for the 400nm option. The flight time has doubled so twice as many Chinooks are needed to carry the same payload weight to the front line.

Basically the main driver is cost. What combination of aircraft is cheapest to travel a certain payload in a given time period. The cheapest solution would be landing civilian 747 freighters at the front line. Unfortunately front lines do not have 10,000ft runways and equipment to unload. Additional requirements would be used that would be country specific. A war at home or a war abroad or just disaster relief they need to plan for all three.

mxaxai wrote:
However, 400nm is very far. All of Germany fits into a 250nm radius circle. An 800nm radius puts most of Europe into reach. You will find a runway that can handle an A400M, and perhaps even a C-17, within 200nm of any given battlefield.

What kind of conflict are you expecting? It sounds like the best option for Germany is to have no airlift and just use civilian trucks on their lovely German autobahn network.

Runways are often the first target in a war. There might be a small section left that could handle a C-130J.

I do not know what conflict Germany expects. Do they still expect a war with Russia? If so Germany might have to send support to Poland and all of Poland's runways could be destroyed. They may need to Chinook everything 400nm.

744SPX · Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:02 am

mxaxai wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Land a C-27J on a very poor runway 100nm from the front line and use Blackhawks.
Land a C-130J on a poor runway 200nm from the front line and use Chinooks.
Land a A400m 400nm from the front line and use a crazy compound solution or require twice as many Chinooks.
Land a C-17 800nm from the front line and use a complex quad tilt rotor solution.

Each solution has advantages and disadvantages. A small tactical prop airlifter and conventional helicopters will nearly always have the least disadvantages. Your idea scores the worst which is why it has been "studied over decades".

Or you could refuel the Chinooks from a KC-130J or A400M and fly the 400nm without a "crazy compound solution".

However, 400nm is very far. All of Germany fits into a 250nm radius circle. An 800nm radius puts most of Europe into reach. You will find a runway that can handle an A400M, and perhaps even a C-17, within 200nm of any given battlefield. Huge range is only required when you need to cross oceans or for special ops that aren't permitted to use nearby airfields.

Finally, FWIW, "crazy compound solutions" haven't just been studied for decades; many have been built and it seems likely that at least one will be adopted by the USA soon. I don't think a Chinook or a V-22 is less "crazy" than the pusher propeller. Russia has the Ka-50/52 coaxial rotor, another complex design. The primary motivation of all of these has been speed, though, not payload capacity.

I agree completely, but I've always been curious as to why the advertised top speed for the Ka-50/52 isn't faster.

And yes, both the co-axial and pusher ideas have been around for over 50 years. That's what drives me nuts about the RACER (X3). Its advertised as "advanced technology" when it is, quite honestly, the crudest implementation of "technologies" designed to make helicopters faster. It could take a serous lesson from the Westland Lynx record holder. THAT is advanced technology. Anybody can put a turboprop pusher/puller on a helicopter and increase its speed. The rotor technology from the Lynx demonstrator is advanced technology, and that's 34 years old now. Unreal.

A co-axial design like the Sikorsky X2 with rotor technology from the Lynx demonstrator (to say nothing of 35 years worth of rotor design improvements in the meantime) should be able to do 260 knots easy. Without resorting to the crude pusher propeller solution. The fact that the Lynx's record is unbroken after 34 years is pretty pathetic.

A "compound solution" shouldn't even be necessary.

WIederling · Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:15 am

744SPX wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Land a C-27J on a very poor runway 100nm from the front line and use Blackhawks.
Land a C-130J on a poor runway 200nm from the front line and use Chinooks.
Land a A400m 400nm from the front line and use a crazy compound solution or require twice as many Chinooks.
Land a C-17 800nm from the front line and use a complex quad tilt rotor solution.

Each solution has advantages and disadvantages. A small tactical prop airlifter and conventional helicopters will nearly always have the least disadvantages. Your idea scores the worst which is why it has been "studied over decades".

Or you could refuel the Chinooks from a KC-130J or A400M and fly the 400nm without a "crazy compound solution".

However, 400nm is very far. All of Germany fits into a 250nm radius circle. An 800nm radius puts most of Europe into reach. You will find a runway that can handle an A400M, and perhaps even a C-17, within 200nm of any given battlefield. Huge range is only required when you need to cross oceans or for special ops that aren't permitted to use nearby airfields.

Finally, FWIW, "crazy compound solutions" haven't just been studied for decades; many have been built and it seems likely that at least one will be adopted by the USA soon. I don't think a Chinook or a V-22 is less "crazy" than the pusher propeller. Russia has the Ka-50/52 coaxial rotor, another complex design. The primary motivation of all of these has been speed, though, not payload capacity.

I agree completely, but I've always been curious as to why the advertised top speed for the Ka-50/52 isn't faster.

And yes, both the co-axial and pusher ideas have been around for over 50 years. That's what drives me nuts about the RACER (X3). Its advertised as "advanced technology" when it is, quite honestly, the crudest implementation of "technologies" designed to make helicopters faster. It could take a serous lesson from the Westland Lynx record holder. THAT is advanced technology. Anybody can put a turboprop pusher/puller on a helicopter and increase its speed. The rotor technology from the Lynx demonstrator is advanced technology, and that's 34 years old now. Unreal.

A co-axial design like the Sikorsky X2 with rotor technology from the Lynx demonstrator (to say nothing of 35 years worth of rotor design improvements in the meantime) should be able to do 260 knots easy. Without resorting to the crude pusher propeller solution. The fact that the Lynx's record is unbroken after 34 years is pretty pathetic.

A "compound solution" shouldn't even be necessary.

X2 combines a complex coaxial dual rotor system with the added on wart of a pusher prop. no redundancy.
coaxial rotors _are_complex.

X3/Racer adds 2 redundant props to a basically simple rotor design. lose one prop and it is still ok.

Lynx and various research samples from Bölkow/MBB seem to have pushed boundaries quite a bit
and also have shown where you run into diminishing gains.( go faster but at cost.)
The Derschmidt Rotor was an overly complexcul de sac.
Helo research has shown more interest in Low Noise,efficiency in recent times. ( surprise! )

texl1649 · Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:09 am

RJMAZ wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Or you could refuel the Chinooks from a KC-130J or A400M and fly the 400nm without a "crazy compound solution".

That is why I said twice as many Chinooks for the 400nm option. The flight time has doubled so twice as many Chinooks are needed to carry the same payload weight to the front line.

Basically the main driver is cost. What combination of aircraft is cheapest to travel a certain payload in a given time period. The cheapest solution would be landing civilian 747 freighters at the front line. Unfortunately front lines do not have 10,000ft runways and equipment to unload. Additional requirements would be used that would be country specific. A war at home or a war abroad or just disaster relief they need to plan for all three.

mxaxai wrote:
However, 400nm is very far. All of Germany fits into a 250nm radius circle. An 800nm radius puts most of Europe into reach. You will find a runway that can handle an A400M, and perhaps even a C-17, within 200nm of any given battlefield.

What kind of conflict are you expecting? It sounds like the best option for Germany is to have no airlift and just use civilian trucks on their lovely German autobahn network.

Runways are often the first target in a war. There might be a small section left that could handle a C-130J.

I do not know what conflict Germany expects. Do they still expect a war with Russia? If so Germany might have to send support to Poland and all of Poland's runways could be destroyed. They may need to Chinook everything 400nm.

LOL, historically the Germans have relied quite a bit on the rail networks within Germany, and about Poland, France, Benelux etc.

keesje · Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:46 am

The approach of having counterrotating main hubs and pusher prop in the tail, like Boeing Sikorsky have, has great access through the side doors.
I can imagine though that the main rotor system and long tail drive train boost empty weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky% ... -1_Defiant

I always find the pusher props annoying loud. Aircraft a well as these compound helicopters. It's the wake hitting the prop. The RACER has it too, Probably it will be loud, louder than the X3. Manufacturers acknowledge this tactical noise disadvantage by offering "whisper mode" effectively deactivating the tail rotor. That won't fully work on the RACER, because it needs some counter moment fo the main rotor.

bikerthai · Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:36 pm

744SPX wrote:
agree completely, but I've always been curious as to why the advertised top speed for the Ka-50/52 isn't faster.

To put in simple terms:
For all rotating blades, the limiting factor is the tip speed of the blade and the shock wave over the foil.
When going forward, the tip speed on one side is increased by the forward speed.

With a pusher prop, the liftind blades have to do less work (just need to keep the frame up) so the air flow over the foil don't get to that shock untill later. Unlike a plane, where you can overcome the shock over wing by introducing an initial shock at the nose, it becomes a chicken and egg dilemma for copters. You can increase the speed by reducing the lift capacity, but you hit that barrier.

One way to increase the speed is by locking the blade like what Boeing tried with the Dragonfly. I guess it didn't work out as they wanted as the program was shelved.

bt

WIederling · Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:02 pm

All the (German) funnies from back when:
http://pra.org/publicdl/Articles%20Gene ... rcraft.pdf

i.e. none of the concepts from recent years are new.

RJMAZ · Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:20 pm

The Super Chinook flew for the first time last week. Most members probably wouldn't have known the state of the art T408 engines developed for the King Stallion have now flown on the Chinook with an improved rotor system.

This probably explains the high price of the Chinook offer for the Germans. It might have included some development cost in the price.

The reports I have heard is the Block 2 Chinook with the new engines can lift the same internal payload weight of the King Stallion with only two instead of three engines. The Chinook can fit three 463L pallets compared to the King Stallions two pallets.

The Super Chinook should clearly win in any future international heavy helicopter competitions. Very few militaries will require the high agility of the King Stallion.

kitplane01 · Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:00 am

It's not obvious why the Germany government want to buy new large helicopters.

16 of 72 CH-53s combat ready
26 of 93 Tornado's combat ready
10 of 128 Typhoons combat ready
0 of 6 submarines combat ready
3 of 15 A400s ready

It's been this way for years.
This list goes on. Maybe instead of buying to aircraft, they should buy new parts and get more mechanics.

https://www.businessinsider.com/germany ... aft-2019-3
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... ing-110696

bikerthai · Fri Oct 09, 2020 3:47 am

kitplane01 wrote:
they should buy new parts and get more mechanics.

If they get the Chinook, they can pool with the UK for a suport contract.
And if the French get in on the act you might get a group discount.
bt

744SPX · Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:00 am

bikerthai wrote:
744SPX wrote:
agree completely, but I've always been curious as to why the advertised top speed for the Ka-50/52 isn't faster.

To put in simple terms:
For all rotating blades, the limiting factor is the tip speed of the blade and the shock wave over the foil.
When going forward, the tip speed on one side is increased by the forward speed.

With a pusher prop, the liftind blades have to do less work (just need to keep the frame up) so the air flow over the foil don't get to that shock untill later. Unlike a plane, where you can overcome the shock over wing by introducing an initial shock at the nose, it becomes a chicken and egg dilemma for copters. You can increase the speed by reducing the lift capacity, but you hit that barrier.

One way to increase the speed is by locking the blade like what Boeing tried with the Dragonfly. I guess it didn't work out as they wanted as the program was shelved.

bt

Like the Sikorsky X-wing helicopter, where the rotors would stop at high speed and function as wings. Same concept as intended for the (fictional) Airwolf.

mxaxai · Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:09 am

kitplane01 wrote:
It's not obvious why the Germany government want to buy new large helicopters.

16 of 72 CH-53s combat ready

That's precisely the reason why they want new helicopters. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find spare parts for the old CH-53 while more and more parts need replacing due to age.

Additional funding for spares and maintenance has been approved a few years ago already but that doesn't always have immediate effects. For this new helicopter, the RFP asked for the inclusion of maintenance costs as well as a plan how to achieve the desired reliability and the necessary IP to move maintenance to third party contractors if the OEM doesn't provide adequate support.

This is also the reason why they didn't ask for new developments; this was supposed to be as off-the-shelf as possible.

Ozair · Fri Oct 09, 2020 8:50 am

RJMAZ wrote:
The Super Chinook flew for the first time last week. Most members probably wouldn't have known the state of the art T408 engines developed for the King Stallion have now flown on the Chinook with an improved rotor system.

This probably explains the high price of the Chinook offer for the Germans. It might have included some development cost in the price.

The reports I have heard is the Block 2 Chinook with the new engines can lift the same internal payload weight of the King Stallion with only two instead of three engines. The Chinook can fit three 463L pallets compared to the King Stallions two pallets.

The Super Chinook should clearly win in any future international heavy helicopter competitions. Very few militaries will require the high agility of the King Stallion.

A very unlikely scenario. Germany owning a T408 powered Chinook would likely leave them with an orphan fleet and one far more costly to sustain compared to the global fleet. If the trade off is performance versus sustainability then sustainability wins every time...

kitplane01 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:47 am

mxaxai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
It's not obvious why the Germany government want to buy new large helicopters.

16 of 72 CH-53s combat ready

That's precisely the reason why they want new helicopters. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find spare parts for the old CH-53 while more and more parts need replacing due to age.

Why would the CH-53 have a parts problem?

"This has changed over the last year. The USMC initiated a ‘reset’, aimed at bringing the aging CH-53Es back to full readiness. This means full depot level maintenance for every Sea Stallion, stripping them down the bones and building them back up again. Problems that have been either missed or ignored are finally getting fixed, and its working. Squadrons are reporting better than 90% readiness month to month, as opposed to estimates of as low as 20-30% just a few years ago." -- https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/03/28 ... -increase/

If the marines can do a complete "strip to bones and build them back up" it sounds like the marines have a supply of parts. And if the marines can get a 90% readiness rate, the German 25% is just not good enough. Besides, the 25% is about what the Germans get for their Typhoons and A400s, which clearly have a supply of parts.

(I realize the 90% might not be sustainable. And I realize that strip-and-rebuild is expensive. But buying aircraft and getting a 25% readiness rate is even more expensive. Especially when you do it for every aircraft type in your fleet!)

(Has anyone seen readiness rates outside of 2017-2019? That's all Google offers me.)

texl1649 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:29 am

Kitplane, that report in 2017 was so embarrassing the Germans changed their reporting moving forward to not provide that data publicly any longer.

GDB · Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:36 am

kitplane01 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
It's not obvious why the Germany government want to buy new large helicopters.

16 of 72 CH-53s combat ready

That's precisely the reason why they want new helicopters. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find spare parts for the old CH-53 while more and more parts need replacing due to age.

Why would the CH-53 have a parts problem?

"This has changed over the last year. The USMC initiated a ‘reset’, aimed at bringing the aging CH-53Es back to full readiness. This means full depot level maintenance for every Sea Stallion, stripping them down the bones and building them back up again. Problems that have been either missed or ignored are finally getting fixed, and its working. Squadrons are reporting better than 90% readiness month to month, as opposed to estimates of as low as 20-30% just a few years ago." -- https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/03/28 ... -increase/

If the marines can do a complete "strip to bones and build them back up" it sounds like the marines have a supply of parts. And if the marines can get a 90% readiness rate, the German 25% is just not good enough. Besides, the 25% is about what the Germans get for their Typhoons and A400s, which clearly have a supply of parts.

(I realize the 90% might not be sustainable. And I realize that strip-and-rebuild is expensive. But buying aircraft and getting a 25% readiness rate is even more expensive. Especially when you do it for every aircraft type in your fleet!)

(Has anyone seen readiness rates outside of 2017-2019? That's all Google offers me.)

You don't seem to know that the USMC CH-53E's, (a different model) are rather younger than the G models built for Germany in the early/mid 70's. Between 1971-75 to be precise.
How many pre E model CH-53's are even around now?

They really cannot win can they? First they are not doing enough on defence, then when want to increase a capability that is overdue for renewal they get attacked or mocked for that.
Plus contary to popular (US) belief, those CH-53G's have not been sitting idle since the Cold War ended, when you deploy some to Afghanistan for instance that put's a strain on a fleet that is aging, becoming a rarity it that particular version, meaning you have to strip out a lot a spares to support even a smaller deployment to a harsh environment new to the German Armed Forces

From wiki, a summary of the life of the fleet, it's upgrades and deployments

In 1966, the German military evaluated both the CH-53 and CH-47 Chinook as a replacement for the H-21 and H-34G helicopters with an initial requirement for 133. The purchase of the CH-53 was approved in June 1968 but due to budget constraints only 110 were ordered. Following the delivery in 1969 of two pre-production helicopters from Sikorsky the production aircraft were licence built by VFW-Fokker at Speyer in Germany. The first German-built CH-53G Mittlerer Transporthubschrauber helicopter flew from Speyer on 11 October 1971 and was delivered to the Erprobungsstelle der Bundeswehr 61 flight test center at Manching on 1 December 1971.

The German Army Aviation Corps received 110 type CH-53Gs, derivatives of the CH-53D, between 1971 and 1975. 108 helicopters were built in Germany by VFW-Fokker. The first flight by a German CH-53G was made in 1971, followed in March 1973 by the delivery of the first machines to Heeresfliegerregiment (HFlgRgt, Army Aviation Corps Regiment) 35 in Mendig, and shortly afterwards to the newly formed Army Aviation Corps Regiment 15 based at Rheine and Army Aviation Corps Regiment 25 based at Laupheim.[citation needed]

In order to meet ever more demanding specifications, over time the CH-53G received modifications from 1990 designed to improve its service life and operational capabilities. These involved three major upgrades: new missile warning and self-protection systems; provision for two external fuel tanks allowing range to be increased to 1,100 mi (1,800 km) when carrying 36 armed soldiers or a 12,100 lb (5,500 kg) payload; and addition of a night vision goggles-compatible cockpit for night low-level flying capabilities. All CH-53Gs were upgraded by Eurocopter Germany by early 2001, resulting in updated GS/GE/GA variants. As a result of foreign military operations 20 CH-53G helicopters were converted to perform Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) missions. Version CH-53GS is equipped with modernized IFR equipment, additional exterior fuel tanks, low-flight night vision cockpit and NVG, partial ballistic protection, engine dust collectors, missile counter measure and self-defence armament. Additionally the original engines were replaced by the more powerful T64-100 engines.[citation needed]

German Army Aviation Corps units have carried out a wide range of international missions under the auspices of NATO and the UN, providing transport for members of UNSCOM in Iraq, serving in Kosovo with KFOR, with IFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and more recently with ISAF in Afghanistan. Due to the lower cargo capacities of the NH-90, service life extensions for at least a portion the CH-53 fleet are envisioned, bringing its useful life out to approximately 2030.[citation needed]

On 1 January 2013 all Army Aviation Corps CH-53Gs were transferred to the German Air Force and incorporated into Helicopter Wing 64.

Revelation · Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:19 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Why would the CH-53 have a parts problem?

"This has changed over the last year. The USMC initiated a ‘reset’, aimed at bringing the aging CH-53Es back to full readiness. This means full depot level maintenance for every Sea Stallion, stripping them down the bones and building them back up again. Problems that have been either missed or ignored are finally getting fixed, and its working. Squadrons are reporting better than 90% readiness month to month, as opposed to estimates of as low as 20-30% just a few years ago." -- https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/03/28 ... -increase/

If the marines can do a complete "strip to bones and build them back up" it sounds like the marines have a supply of parts. And if the marines can get a 90% readiness rate, the German 25% is just not good enough. Besides, the 25% is about what the Germans get for their Typhoons and A400s, which clearly have a supply of parts.

(I realize the 90% might not be sustainable. And I realize that strip-and-rebuild is expensive. But buying aircraft and getting a 25% readiness rate is even more expensive. Especially when you do it for every aircraft type in your fleet!)

(Has anyone seen readiness rates outside of 2017-2019? That's all Google offers me.)

Given the German demand for IP on the new models, one can theorize that the vendors are charging high prices for spares and services, higher than Germany cares to pay. This theory is also supported by the high price the vendors placed on such IP: they would not want to lose a lucrative after-market.

mxaxai wrote:
For this new helicopter, the RFP asked for (1) the inclusion of maintenance costs as well as a plan how to achieve the desired reliability and (2) the necessary IP to move maintenance to third party contractors if the OEM doesn't provide adequate support.

The first part sounds quite reasonable. It could be written into a contract, and include inflation clauses. The second part sounds problematic. No one wants to give up that level of control. Maybe a middle ground could be found, where an arbitrator in a neutral jurisdiction would be used to determine what was "adequate support" and only release the level of IP needed to cover that specific issue, but even that seems problematic.

Ozair · Sat Oct 10, 2020 8:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
Given the German demand for IP on the new models, one can theorize that the vendors are charging high prices for spares and services, higher than Germany cares to pay. This theory is also supported by the high price the vendors placed on such IP: they would not want to lose a lucrative after-market.

The Primes must be terrified of additive manufacturing and what that might do to future sustainment contracts. Protecting that via their IP is perhaps their only option.

bikerthai · Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:42 pm

Ozair wrote:
The Primes must be terrified of additive manufacturing and what that might do to future sustainment contracts.

Not in any time soon. The IP for a part involve more than just how to build or the shape of the hardware. It also include the very important structural analysis that comes with the certification of the hardware.

You can replicate a part using additive manufacturing all you want, but if you don't have license for the IP including all the analysis behind it, you can not get it certified to be used on the aircraft. It just become another black market part.

bt

kitplane01 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:17 pm

GDB wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
That's precisely the reason why they want new helicopters. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find spare parts for the old CH-53 while more and more parts need replacing due to age.

Why would the CH-53 have a parts problem?

"This has changed over the last year. The USMC initiated a ‘reset’, aimed at bringing the aging CH-53Es back to full readiness. This means full depot level maintenance for every Sea Stallion, stripping them down the bones and building them back up again. Problems that have been either missed or ignored are finally getting fixed, and its working. Squadrons are reporting better than 90% readiness month to month, as opposed to estimates of as low as 20-30% just a few years ago." -- https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/03/28 ... -increase/

If the marines can do a complete "strip to bones and build them back up" it sounds like the marines have a supply of parts. And if the marines can get a 90% readiness rate, the German 25% is just not good enough. Besides, the 25% is about what the Germans get for their Typhoons and A400s, which clearly have a supply of parts.

(I realize the 90% might not be sustainable. And I realize that strip-and-rebuild is expensive. But buying aircraft and getting a 25% readiness rate is even more expensive. Especially when you do it for every aircraft type in your fleet!)

(Has anyone seen readiness rates outside of 2017-2019? That's all Google offers me.)

You don't seem to know that the USMC CH-53E's, (a different model) are rather younger than the G models built for Germany in the early/mid 70's. Between 1971-75 to be precise.
How many pre E model CH-53's are even around now?

They really cannot win can they? First they are not doing enough on defence, then when want to increase a capability that is overdue for renewal they get attacked or mocked for that.
Plus contary to popular (US) belief, those CH-53G's have not been sitting idle since the Cold War ended, when you deploy some to Afghanistan for instance that put's a strain on a fleet that is aging, becoming a rarity it that particular version, meaning you have to strip out a lot a spares to support even a smaller deployment to a harsh environment new to the German Armed Forces

I'm not mocking. Not once.

The problem is not the CH-53s. They get the same 25% readiness for A400s, Typhoons, submarines, etc. The problem is not the CH-53s.

(Although if someone had newer data .. awesome. I read upthread that's not possible because it was too embarrassing for the Bundeswher)

kitplane01 · Sat Oct 10, 2020 11:32 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Ozair wrote:
The Primes must be terrified of additive manufacturing and what that might do to future sustainment contracts.

Not in any time soon. The IP for a part involve more than just how to build or the shape of the hardware. It also include the very important structural analysis that comes with the certification of the hardware.

You can replicate a part using additive manufacturing all you want, but if you don't have license for the IP including all the analysis behind it, you can not get it certified to be used on the aircraft. It just become another black market part.

bt

If I make an identical part to the one already certified, I believe that is good enough. But that might be hard for complicated things with secret build processes. It can be done for things as complicated as a cylinder for a Lycoming or Continental engine. See 8110.42C, page 6-7. https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/med ... 110.42c.pd

Identicality without a Licensing Agreement: The applicant sends the appropriate
ACO a statement certifying that the design is identical in all respects to an approved design (for
example, TC, STC or TSO authorization). The applicant also provides the data supporting the
identicality claim for review and approval. These data verify the identicality in dimensional and
material characteristics, special processes and coatings, and test and acceptance criteria.
Identicality without access to the original design data is nearly impossible for sophisticated parts
with proprietary processes or coatings. Identicality to another PMA is unacceptable because
14 CFR § 21.303(c)(4) restricts identicality to only parts covered under type certificates.

bikerthai · Sun Oct 11, 2020 11:59 am

kitplane01 wrote:
But that might be hard for complicated things with secret build processes. It can be done for things as complicated as

A process does not have to be secret to make it difficult to reverse engineer. Something as simple as heat treat can affect the limit strength if a part. How easy is it to differentiate one heat treat from another?

Needless to say, reverse engineering is not impossible. But by the time you spend all the effort, it often ended up costing more than the part is worth.

This is the time consuming and expensive part:

"The applicant also provides the data supporting the
identicality claim for review and approval. These data verify the identicality in dimensional and
material characteristics, special processes and coatings, and test and acceptance criteria."

Especially the test and acceptance criteria.

bt

GDB · Sun Oct 11, 2020 4:44 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
GDB wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Why would the CH-53 have a parts problem?

"This has changed over the last year. The USMC initiated a ‘reset’, aimed at bringing the aging CH-53Es back to full readiness. This means full depot level maintenance for every Sea Stallion, stripping them down the bones and building them back up again. Problems that have been either missed or ignored are finally getting fixed, and its working. Squadrons are reporting better than 90% readiness month to month, as opposed to estimates of as low as 20-30% just a few years ago." -- https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/03/28 ... -increase/

If the marines can do a complete "strip to bones and build them back up" it sounds like the marines have a supply of parts. And if the marines can get a 90% readiness rate, the German 25% is just not good enough. Besides, the 25% is about what the Germans get for their Typhoons and A400s, which clearly have a supply of parts.

(I realize the 90% might not be sustainable. And I realize that strip-and-rebuild is expensive. But buying aircraft and getting a 25% readiness rate is even more expensive. Especially when you do it for every aircraft type in your fleet!)

(Has anyone seen readiness rates outside of 2017-2019? That's all Google offers me.)

You don't seem to know that the USMC CH-53E's, (a different model) are rather younger than the G models built for Germany in the early/mid 70's. Between 1971-75 to be precise.
How many pre E model CH-53's are even around now?

They really cannot win can they? First they are not doing enough on defence, then when want to increase a capability that is overdue for renewal they get attacked or mocked for that.
Plus contary to popular (US) belief, those CH-53G's have not been sitting idle since the Cold War ended, when you deploy some to Afghanistan for instance that put's a strain on a fleet that is aging, becoming a rarity it that particular version, meaning you have to strip out a lot a spares to support even a smaller deployment to a harsh environment new to the German Armed Forces

I'm not mocking. Not once.

The problem is not the CH-53s. They get the same 25% readiness for A400s, Typhoons, submarines, etc. The problem is not the CH-53s.

(Although if someone had newer data .. awesome. I read upthread that's not possible because it was too embarrassing for the Bundeswher)

Point taken, I think Germany in it's deployments over the past 20 or so years, which means attention has to fall on, for instance, modding those CH-53's for CSAR and more general ones for very non central European conditions, has impacted across the services.
To a lesser extent it's true of the UK too, though in both cases the post 2015 upping of defence spending will work through in time, Germany having for a long time spent a lot less, has more work to do.

But it's not all about that, procurement nightmares too, there has I understand been a protracted and difficult with a new class of German Frigates, however they seem to pale in comparison to the USN's DDG-1000, huge costs, down to three hulls and the ammo for the high tech new guns is too expensive.
And that from the largest defence budget, by far, in the world.

texl1649 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:26 am

Many, many countries have done a much better job than either Germany or the USN at bringing in a new frigate class. I will keep my rants about the ludicrous LCS Zumwalt blah blah for another forum, but it’s not pertinent here. Pointing at the single biggest (and protracted) US procurement disaster of the 21st century in military systems is off topic.

The German heavy lift helicopter procurement though is not for a ‘category change’ concept worth hundreds of billions, it’s for an off the shelf purchase of a helicopter.

kitplane01 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:35 am

bikerthai wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
But that might be hard for complicated things with secret build processes. It can be done for things as complicated as

A process does not have to be secret to make it difficult to reverse engineer. Something as simple as heat treat can affect the limit strength if a part. How easy is it to differentiate one heat treat from another?

Needless to say, reverse engineering is not impossible. But by the time you spend all the effort, it often ended up costing more than the part is worth.

This is the time consuming and expensive part:

"The applicant also provides the data supporting the
identicality claim for review and approval. These data verify the identicality in dimensional and
material characteristics, special processes and coatings, and test and acceptance criteria."

Especially the test and acceptance criteria.

bt

We're in complete agreement on what you wrote.

I was arguing against the claim that one must do a structural/functional analysis of every part. That's wrong. It's enough to make an identical part. And for *some* parts, that's doable.

Noray · Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:47 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
GDB wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

Why would the CH-53 have a parts problem?

"This has changed over the last year. The USMC initiated a ‘reset’, aimed at bringing the aging CH-53Es back to full readiness. This means full depot level maintenance for every Sea Stallion, stripping them down the bones and building them back up again. Problems that have been either missed or ignored are finally getting fixed, and its working. Squadrons are reporting better than 90% readiness month to month, as opposed to estimates of as low as 20-30% just a few years ago." -- https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/03/28 ... -increase/

If the marines can do a complete "strip to bones and build them back up" it sounds like the marines have a supply of parts. And if the marines can get a 90% readiness rate, the German 25% is just not good enough. Besides, the 25% is about what the Germans get for their Typhoons and A400s, which clearly have a supply of parts.

(I realize the 90% might not be sustainable. And I realize that strip-and-rebuild is expensive. But buying aircraft and getting a 25% readiness rate is even more expensive. Especially when you do it for every aircraft type in your fleet!)

(Has anyone seen readiness rates outside of 2017-2019? That's all Google offers me.)

You don't seem to know that the USMC CH-53E's, (a different model) are rather younger than the G models built for Germany in the early/mid 70's. Between 1971-75 to be precise.
How many pre E model CH-53's are even around now?

They really cannot win can they? First they are not doing enough on defence, then when want to increase a capability that is overdue for renewal they get attacked or mocked for that.
Plus contary to popular (US) belief, those CH-53G's have not been sitting idle since the Cold War ended, when you deploy some to Afghanistan for instance that put's a strain on a fleet that is aging, becoming a rarity it that particular version, meaning you have to strip out a lot a spares to support even a smaller deployment to a harsh environment new to the German Armed Forces

I'm not mocking. Not once.

The problem is not the CH-53s. They get the same 25% readiness for A400s, Typhoons, submarines, etc. The problem is not the CH-53s.

CH-53G is at the end of the bathtub curve.

A400M was at the beginning of that curve.

Typhoons and submarines: During the Bundeswehr reforms of the last decade, some responsibilities for maintenance and stock of spare parts were handed over to the industry. But the industry built up their capacities too slowly.

Different reasons, same effect.

kitplane01 wrote:
(Although if someone had newer data .. awesome. I read upthread that's not possible because it was too embarrassing for the Bundeswher)

At least you know that your numbers are outdated. Will you please stop pretending the opposite?

kitplane01 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:32 pm

Noray wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
GDB wrote:

You don't seem to know that the USMC CH-53E's, (a different model) are rather younger than the G models built for Germany in the early/mid 70's. Between 1971-75 to be precise.
How many pre E model CH-53's are even around now?

They really cannot win can they? First they are not doing enough on defence, then when want to increase a capability that is overdue for renewal they get attacked or mocked for that.
Plus contary to popular (US) belief, those CH-53G's have not been sitting idle since the Cold War ended, when you deploy some to Afghanistan for instance that put's a strain on a fleet that is aging, becoming a rarity it that particular version, meaning you have to strip out a lot a spares to support even a smaller deployment to a harsh environment new to the German Armed Forces

I'm not mocking. Not once.

The problem is not the CH-53s. They get the same 25% readiness for A400s, Typhoons, submarines, etc. The problem is not the CH-53s.

CH-53G is at the end of the bathtub curve.

A400M was at the beginning of that curve.

Typhoons and submarines: During the Bundeswehr reforms of the last decade, some responsibilities for maintenance and stock of spare parts were handed over to the industry. But the industry built up their capacities too slowly.

Different reasons, same effect.

kitplane01 wrote:
(Although if someone had newer data .. awesome. I read upthread that's not possible because it was too embarrassing for the Bundeswher)

At least you know that your numbers are outdated. Will you please stop pretending the opposite?

I'm not pretending anything! I said the dates, I gave the citations.

I don't think this data is out-of-date. The program will probably last 20 or 30 years, and this data is from 3 years ago.

If the German government found the reports so embarrassing they stopped making them public, I don't see why I should think it's gotten better. If you have a reason to believe it's better I'm so listening.

Noray · Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:46 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Noray wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

I'm not mocking. Not once.

The problem is not the CH-53s. They get the same 25% readiness for A400s, Typhoons, submarines, etc. The problem is not the CH-53s.

CH-53G is at the end of the bathtub curve.

A400M was at the beginning of that curve.

Typhoons and submarines: During the Bundeswehr reforms of the last decade, some responsibilities for maintenance and stock of spare parts were handed over to the industry. But the industry built up their capacities too slowly.

Different reasons, same effect.

kitplane01 wrote:
(Although if someone had newer data .. awesome. I read upthread that's not possible because it was too embarrassing for the Bundeswher)

At least you know that your numbers are outdated. Will you please stop pretending the opposite?

I'm not pretending anything! I said the dates, I gave the citations.

I don't think this data is out-of-date. The program will probably last 20 or 30 years, and this data is from 3 years ago.

If the German government found the reports so embarrassing they stopped making them public, I don't see why I should think it's gotten better. If you have a reason to believe it's better I'm so listening.

These reports were only introduced in 2014. The first two reports were restricted (VS-NfD), they were addressed to the parliament for internal use only, but some information got through to the press and created some public discussion about poor degrees of readiness. Don't be surprised if people get annoyed while you point them at a topic they've been addressing for years.

Then, in 11/2016 and 02/2018, not more than two reports were published without restrictions! It remains open for discussion if it was a wise decision to give that much information for free to potential enemies.

No tradition was broken when the fifth report in 2019 consisted of a public section (with little detail) and a classified section.

The public section gives away only limitied information. Here are quotes from the latest report (06/2020):

Beispiele für neue Systeme mit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 30% bis 93% - sind u.a. SPz PUMA, A400M, H 145M LUH SOF, Geschützte Transportfahrzeuge (GTF) Zuladungsklasse (ZLK) 15t und NH 90. Bei 4 von 11 Systemen haben wir Sonderprogramme zur Steigerung der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft aufgelegt (u.a. SPz PUMA). Erstmals liegt die materielle Einsatzbereitschaft dieses Clusters bei über 70% im Durchschnitt aller 11 Systeme.

Google translate wrote:
Examples of new systems with a high fluctuation range of material readiness between 30% and 93% include AFV PUMA, A400M, H 145M LUH SOF, Protected Transport Vehicles (GTF) load class (ZLK) 15t and NH 90. In 4 of 11 systems, we have set up special programs to increase the operational readiness (including IFV PUMA). For the first time, the material readiness of this cluster is over 70% on average for all 11 systems.

(None of the named systems curently has as little as 25 % readiness.)

Beim A400M konnten zudem die Flugstunden seit 2017 vervierfacht werden.

Concerning the A400M, flight hours have also quadrupled since 2017.

kitplane01 · Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:12 pm

Noray wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Noray wrote:

CH-53G is at the end of the bathtub curve.

A400M was at the beginning of that curve.

Typhoons and submarines: During the Bundeswehr reforms of the last decade, some responsibilities for maintenance and stock of spare parts were handed over to the industry. But the industry built up their capacities too slowly.

Different reasons, same effect.

At least you know that your numbers are outdated. Will you please stop pretending the opposite?

I'm not pretending anything! I said the dates, I gave the citations.

I don't think this data is out-of-date. The program will probably last 20 or 30 years, and this data is from 3 years ago.

If the German government found the reports so embarrassing they stopped making them public, I don't see why I should think it's gotten better. If you have a reason to believe it's better I'm so listening.

These reports were only introduced in 2014. The first two reports were restricted (VS-NfD), they were addressed to the parliament for internal use only, but some information got through to the press and created some public discussion about poor degrees of readiness. Don't be surprised if people get annoyed while you point them at a topic they've been addressing for years.

Then, in 11/2016 and 02/2018, not more than two reports were published without restrictions! It remains open for discussion if it was a wise decision to give that much information for free to potential enemies.

No tradition was broken when the fifth report in 2019 consisted of a public section (with little detail) and a classified section.

The public section gives away only limitied information. Here are quotes from the latest report (06/2020):
Beispiele für neue Systeme mit einer im Verlauf hohen Schwankungsbreite der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft zwischen 30% bis 93% - sind u.a. SPz PUMA, A400M, H 145M LUH SOF, Geschützte Transportfahrzeuge (GTF) Zuladungsklasse (ZLK) 15t und NH 90. Bei 4 von 11 Systemen haben wir Sonderprogramme zur Steigerung der materiellen Einsatzbereitschaft aufgelegt (u.a. SPz PUMA). Erstmals liegt die materielle Einsatzbereitschaft dieses Clusters bei über 70% im Durchschnitt aller 11 Systeme.

Google translate wrote:
Examples of new systems with a high fluctuation range of material readiness between 30% and 93% include AFV PUMA, A400M, H 145M LUH SOF, Protected Transport Vehicles (GTF) load class (ZLK) 15t and NH 90. In 4 of 11 systems, we have set up special programs to increase the operational readiness (including IFV PUMA). For the first time, the material readiness of this cluster is over 70% on average for all 11 systems.

(None of the named systems curently has as little as 25 % readiness.)

Beim A400M konnten zudem die Flugstunden seit 2017 vervierfacht werden.

Concerning the A400M, flight hours have also quadrupled since 2017.

That is interesting.

I know the Americans provide this kind of data publicly. I would be stunned if the reason the Germans stopped is to avoid giving the Russians intel. Wouldn't you?

Reading press reports of the time focused on submarines, A400, Typhoon, and the CH-53. Only one is in that list.

Still, this is interesting, and some evidence that things are getting better (or that they're working on it). You taught me something new ... thanks.

mxaxai · Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:22 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I know the Americans provide this kind of data publicly. I would be stunned if the reason the Germans stopped is to avoid giving the Russians intel. Wouldn't you?

Does anybody except the USAF publish the data regularly? I've tried to find the numbers for the RAF or Armée de l'Air but either my french is too poor or they don't do that. Kudos to the Americans, though ...

Noray · Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:34 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
I know the Americans provide this kind of data publicly. I would be stunned if the reason the Germans stopped is to avoid giving the Russians intel. Wouldn't you?

Who said it's because of the Russians? I guess they're getting the data sooner than the German minister of defence ...
"Potential enemies" could even extend to anybody who takes these numbers out of context to to put Germany under pressure.

kitplane01 wrote:
Reading press reports of the time focused on submarines, A400, Typhoon, and the CH-53. Only one is in that list.

That was just a tiny quote from the original report that is linked in my previous post. You'll find more there.

EUROFIGHTER – weitere Erhöhung des Klarstands im Schnitt auf fast 60%

EUROFIGHTER - further increase in average readiness to almost 60%

Ozair · Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:51 pm

As expected by a few of our German posters the helicopter competition is getting a rerun, this time it appears that Germany will try and take the FMS route instead of a direct commercial acquisition path. While I get that the commercial path would have allowed more customisation to local requirements it clearly comes with significant additional cost. I expect the FMS cases will be much closer to what Germany is prepared to pay…

German defense ministry targets new US channel for buying heavy cargo helicopters

The German defense ministry is eyeing something of a redo of its failed acquisition strategy for new heavy cargo helicopters, banking on the U.S. foreign military sales process to yield contracts for either the Lockheed Martin King Stallion or Boeing Chinook by the end of 2022.

The strategy appears in the ministry’s latest report on major weapon systems, released this week. The previous acquisition track, abandoned in September, saw the Berlin government deal directly with the two vendors, dictating a host of special requirements for the aircraft that ended up making their offers too expensive.

By picking the FMS route, the German defense ministry is expected to work more closely with the U.S. government in the eventual purchase of a replacement for the Bundeswehr’s CH-53G helicopters by 2030. The process allows foreign governments buying U.S. kit some leeway in customizing their equipment, but the push for standard-issue equipment is generally more pronounced than in direct commercial sales.

That kind of discipline may be a welcome constraint for the German military-acquisition office, which had added a litany of special requirements for communications equipment and sensors, like a new weather radar, into the previous program. In the end, industry officials said, the eventual wish list released by the defense ministry was a far cry from the original desire for a no-frills workhorse helicopter on the battlefield.

...

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... licopters/

An FMS deal will put to bed any suggestion of an upgraded engine or other significant modifications for the Chinook, the platform will be mostly the same as the current US offering, Blk 2 for SOCOM with but a basic frame for Germany, while the CH-53K would likely be exceptionally close to the USMC variant bar some comms changes that both platforms would have to undertake.

Ozair · Thu Jan 14, 2021 10:00 pm

Boeing and LM have indicated they are still keen to participate in the German Heavy lift RW contract (no surprise there given the size and limited number of bidders) but interestingly the article says that LM has requested a review from the BAAINBw to understand why the tender was cancelled (again shouldn't be a surprise, it was going to cost too much...)

Boeing, Lockheed Martin respond to cancelled German heavy-lift helo tender

The two bidders for Germany’s heavy-lift helicopter requirement have responded to the country’s decision to cancel the Schwerer Transporthubschrauber (STH) tender without warning in late 2020.

Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin told Janes on 13 January that they remain ready to support the Luftwaffe’s continued requirement to replace its 70 VFW-Sikorsky CH-53G-series Stallions with between 40 to 60 H-47 Chinook or CH-53K King Stallion helicopters respectively, although the latter added that it is seeking a review from the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology, and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) into the reasons behind the cancellation.

...

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... elo-tender

I don't have access to paid Janes so cannot tell if Boeing is also going to pursue a review but to me seems likely if LM are doing it. Boeing wouldn't want to miss any additional info that may be made available.

Noshow · Fri Jan 15, 2021 9:03 am

No surprise they will continue to compete for this huge order.

mxaxai · Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:02 pm

Heavy criticism from the armed forces regarding the CH-53G replacement was made public today.

Current situation:

The situation is similar with the CH-53 transport helicopter. After 16 years of continuous deployment in Afghanistan, a break in operations announced for 2021 is urgently needed in order to achieve a degree of consolidation. The CH-53 has been in service with the Bundeswehr since 1972. Important replacement parts are missing and can only be procured with great effort. The operational readiness of the CH-53 is the lowest of all flying weapon systems in the Air Force. Flying hours on this system are therefore scarce. Additionally, it is noticeable that unscheduled landings for safety reasons - 24 between June 2019 and June 2020 - are piling up, according to media research. This is unacceptable; the safety of the servicemen and women must be guaranteed.

Replacement tender:

The armament project for a future heavy transport helicopter (STH) to replace the aging fleet of the CH-53 in its various variants is also going badly. Due to cost concerns, the Defense Ministry cancelled the procurement process in September 2020. This suggests that the existing CH-53s will have to remain in service even longer than previously thought. While the ministry has stressed that the realization of the STH project is a very high priority and that the airlift capability is of paramount importance, it has not yet made a decision. However, the decision on how to proceed, announced by the end of 2020, was still pending at the time of this report. Given the precarious state of the existing fleet for many years, the central importance of airlift capabilities for mission fulfillment and the market availability of capable and proven systems, neither the procedural delay until a final procurement decision nor the resulting capability gap are acceptable.

The report covers all aspects of the armed forces, procurement and maintenance are just one point among many. It is supposed to show the views and concerns of the personnel, and notes that the current program to improve availability of all weapon systems is showing signs of success. A primary problem, from the soldiers' point of view, appears to be an abundance of beaurocracy.
https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/text ... gte-823442 [German]

keesje · Sun Feb 28, 2021 4:28 pm

IMO Chinooks still are the only short term, affordable solution.

GDB · Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:26 pm

keesje wrote:
IMO Chinooks still are the only short term, affordable solution.

Probably true, certainly for use with allies with similar, you have to wonder though if both Germany and Sikorsky did not miss a trick when the CH-53K was being planned, as in give some work to German industry in return for a decent sized order.
That ship has sailed, or chopper lifted off.

keesje · Sun Feb 28, 2021 5:35 pm

GDB wrote:
keesje wrote:
IMO Chinooks still are the only short term, affordable solution.

Probably true, certainly for use with allies with similar, you have to wonder though if both Germany and Sikorsky did not miss a trick when the CH-53K was being planned, as in give some work to German industry in return for a decent sized order.
That ship has sailed, or chopper lifted off.

Boeing has been building partnerships in Germany.

https://www.pilootenvliegtuig.nl/2020/0 ... -47-order/

Probably Boeing knows it has a strong position here and is pricing accordingly.
And has been milking the cashcow for decades, stil using the T55 engines (a nearly 70 yr old design..)
Causing delays. Airbus (& Leonardo) the worlds biggest helicopter builders seem to have been sleeping..

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net