texl1649 wrote:

Yes they are ancient 70’s-era machines. Readiness per 2019 report is around 25% which is actually very good for the Luftwaffe of today.

“ Parts on PUMA are obtained via cannibalisation. Readiness ~25%.
-NH-90 helo readiness just a fraction of airframes (no details). Project 134 months behind schedule, 1.3 billion over budget.
-CH-53 readiness of 71 airframes at 25%. Tornado 93 airframes, less than 25% operational.
-A400M now at 31 aircraft. Despite some positive reports target of 7,200 flying hours missed, only 3.700 hrs done. 148 months behind FOC milestone, 1.6 billion over budget.
-Navy: Massive delays in maintenance b/c once hulls are in yard, the repair log explodes.”

Most of what you list is not Luftwaffe-related. But yes, those are the lowlights from the report. Change takes time especially with the increased number of activities abroad. There are some positives too: Eurofighter readiness has improved, size/headcount growth is on track, and % of women has increased in all branches.

ThePointblank wrote:

Anytime you carry a helicopter in a cargo aircraft, it involves significant amounts of disassembly. Depending on the type and the size of both the aircraft and the helicopter, you are looking at anywhere from a few days to more than a week to reassemble and flight test the helicopter, plus you will need to have all of the tooling and equipment on hand to reassemble the helicopter.

Basically, its easier to fly the helicopter to where you need it to be and take refueling and rest stops along the way. For example, CH-147F's have been flown across Canada from Petawawa to Vancouver before, all done via ferrying the aircraft, rather than stuffing it into a C-17.

As the fixed wing transports can exceed the top speed of a rotor, and less stops, a commander can get the needed assets there faster and in one piece..without downtime for maintenance. As for "re-assembly" I am pretty sure that is factored into the mobilization/deployment orders. Perhaps Galaxy or any AF load masters might have a better idea of that.

Ozair wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

The Chinooks have a lot of stuff hanging/protruding from them nowadays, I imagine the T408 is somewhat inevitable for much of the US Army fleet at this point over the next 10 years, it’s hardly likely to be an orphan, imho.

I agree that a T408 is an eventuality for the US Army CH-47 fleet but for the Germans to start that process and be the sole operator for a period of time seems a larger risk than the benefits the T408 would provide. Better to have the US do all the work and then leverage the benefits for a much smaller cost later.

Interestingly Honeywell and the US Army are testing an upgraded T55 on the CH-47. This to me appears to be a better option than going for the T408. While the T55-GA-714C doesn’t generate the horsepower of the T408 it may be enough to keep the CH-47 with the Honeywell T55 and upgrade existing fleets with this new variant.

US Army to demonstrate its upgraded Chinook engine

The US Army is to demonstrate an uprated ‘next-generation’ version of the Honeywell T55-GA-714 engine on a Boeing CH-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter.

The engine manufacturer announced on 4 June that that it will test the 6,000 shp T55-GA-714C version of the 4,800 shp T55-GA-714A powerplant that already powers the Chinook, demonstrating the uprated engine’s 25% increase in power and 10% reduction in fuel consumption.

…

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... bb6189208f

From a German competition perspective this engine option would certainly increase the capability of the aircraft as well as reduce long term sustainment costs.

Interesting on the T55. Certainly not needing new structural work and more efficiency would be of interest, but I’m not sure Honeywell is yet to the phase where they can bid it, as the new compressor hasn’t been flown even yet.

texl1649 wrote:

Interesting on the T55. Certainly not needing new structural work and more efficiency would be of interest, but I’m not sure Honeywell is yet to the phase where they can bid it, as the new compressor hasn’t been flown even yet.

Sorry should have been clear, agree 100% this won't be an option offered to Germany but the German evaluation team will almost certainly consider the next 20 years of airframe life and potential upgrade path. For the CH-47 it looks like two engine options may be available or at least tested which bodes well for long term support and enhancement of the aircraft.

Absolutely agree the Germans will take into account the upgrade abilities forecast for the Chinook, though I'm not sure what their parameters in the evaluation are. I suspect the T408 or T55 up to 6000 shp will be appealing, but at the same time the Luftwaffe has a history of being...constrained for budgeted improved capabilities, to put it politely. Whatever they get will probably be what they are flying with for at least 3 decades.

It's still amazing that a Vertol design from (at its' core) 1957 is competing today at this level, to me, against basically an all new one, especially with, fundamentally, an upgraded/similar engine to what it came with. Likely, it's the favorite. The only similarly elderly aircraft of any kind in production today still winning military orders I can think of is the C-130, but maybe I am missing another.

With Boeing functionally locked out of FARA/FLRAA I expect some additional news over the next 5 years about offers to continue to improve/refine/profit from the Apache/Chinook, alike.

texl1649 wrote:

Absolutely agree the Germans will take into account the upgrade abilities forecast for the Chinook, though I'm not sure what their parameters in the evaluation are. I suspect the T408 or T55 up to 6000 shp will be appealing, but at the same time the Luftwaffe has a history of being...constrained for budgeted improved capabilities, to put it politely. Whatever they get will probably be what they are flying with for at least 3 decades.

It's still amazing that a Vertol design from (at its' core) 1957 is competing today at this level, to me, against basically an all new one, especially with, fundamentally, an upgraded/similar engine to what it came with. Likely, it's the favorite. The only similarly elderly aircraft of any kind in production today still winning military orders I can think of is the C-130, but maybe I am missing another.

With Boeing functionally locked out of FARA/FLRAA I expect some additional news over the next 5 years about offers to continue to improve/refine/profit from the Apache/Chinook, alike.

I think for designs like C130, Apache there are realitstic newer better alternatives, outside the US. It seems for the Chinooks there aren't. The CH53K seems way more complex and expensive. I haven't seen even better affordable concepts/ ideas for the requirement.

Puts the Germans in a weak negotiating postion. No doubt they'll ask for consessions, but as said, little alternatives for the robust, proven, but still relatively agile and fast Chinook.

The Chinook is faster than an Apache, apparently.. https://youtu.be/ACA8wJ6dRWM?t=283

keesje wrote:

I think for designs like C130, Apache there are realitstic newer better alternatives, outside the US. It seems for the Chinooks there aren't.

I can’t see a viable alternative to the Apache. The Apache remains the market leader and will continue in US Army service indefinitely as there is no defined replacement program for the next twenty years. That means continued support and evolution of the airframe that export nations want. It would certainly be the favourite to win the Australian Army competition in a few years. The CH-53K is certainly now a competitor to the CH-47 but the CH-47 has a great niche and cost base that no other current or in development program can match.

keesje wrote:

The CH53K seems way more complex and expensive. I haven't seen even better affordable concepts/ ideas for the requirement.

The USMC is a hard operator of equipment, I expect they will get the platform operating exactly as they want it to.

keesje wrote:

Puts the Germans in a weak negotiating postion. No doubt they'll ask for consessions, but as said, little alternatives for the robust, proven, but still relatively agile and fast Chinook.

Why a weak negotiating position, running Boeing and LM against each other is a sound and strong bargaining position. Boeing needs the work while LM would be super keen for an international customer, seems perfect for Germany to get a good deal.

And...German defense ministry cancels off the shelf heavy lift helicopter procurement. Maybe they’ll wait for a new engine to be certified on the Chinook first. I dunno, it’s German politics so anything is possible really.

https://twitter.com/bjoern__m/status/13 ... 33152?s=21

If rumours are correct they had no other option but to cancel. Apparently both offers were about double the budget - happens when you´ve only two players left in the market... for valid competition you usually need three. As this is a formal public procurement there are certain value thresholds which cannot be passed easily.

Might as well cancel and update the tender documents. Either requirements to be slimmed down (which begs the danger of excluding one of them for technical grounds, BTW...), or increase the budget, combination of both or go a completely different path (large fleet of H225, similar to France?).

Either way, for both Sikorsky and Boeing certainly not welcome news as this order was supposed to fill large gaps in either production line. Pokered high, lost this round.

Official statement:

German wrote:

"Hiermit informieren wir Sie darüber, dass das Vergabeverfahren im Projekt „Schwerer Transporthubschrauber (STH)“ aufgehoben wurde.
Im Rahmen der laufenden Vergabe wurde erkannt, dass eine Realisierung des Projektes im geplanten Finanzrahmen bei gleichzeitiger Erfüllung aller Forderungen unwahrscheinlich ist. Die Vergabestelle des Bundesamtes für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr hat die vorliegenden Angebote als unwirtschaftlich bewertet und aus diesem Grund das Vergabeverfahren aufgehoben.
Die nunmehr erforderliche Neubetrachtung des Projektes wird Auswirkungen auf den bisherigen Zeitplan haben. Ein Vertragsschluss in 2021 unter den derzeitigen Rahmenbedingungen kann somit nicht erreicht werden.
Ziel bleibt weiterhin, das bisherige Muster CH-53G zeitgerecht zu ersetzen."

English wrote:

We herewith inform you that the tender for the project "Heavy Transport Helicopter (STH)" has been cancelled.
In the course of the current awarding procedure it was recognized that it is unlikely that the project can be realized within the planned financial framework while meeting all requirements. The awarding authority of the Federal Office for Equipment, Information Technology and Utilization of the German Armed Forces has assessed the present offers as uneconomical and for this reason has cancelled the awarding procedure.
The now necessary reconsideration of the project will have an impact on the previous schedule. Due to this, signing a contract in 2021 under the current framework conditions cannot be achieved.
The goal remains to replace the previous CH-53G model in a timely manner.

And:

German wrote:

Die Realisierung des Projekts STH hat für die Bundeswehr nach wie vor eine sehr hohe Priorität, da sowohl die Fähigkeit zum Lufttransport für die Mobilität und Reaktionsfähigkeit von Streitkräften wie auch für Hilfs- und Unterstützungsleistungen von herausragender Bedeutung ist. (…)
Ziel bleibt weiterhin, einen bruchfreien Fähigkeitsübergang sicherzustellen. Über das weitere Vorgehen wird das BMVg bis Ende 2020 entscheiden.

English wrote:

The implementation of the STH project remains a very high priority for the Bundeswehr, since air transport capability is of outstanding importance for the mobility and responsiveness of armed forces as well as for relief and support services. (…)
The goal remains to ensure a seamless transition of capabilities. The Federal Defence Ministry (BMVg) will decide on the further procedure by the end of 2020.

Brief reminder: The original tender was for 45 to 60 helicopters for 5.6 billion €.

This article (https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/09/zu-t ... eufassung/) suggests that the german government expected significant IP transfer, and that Boeing / Sikorsky put a large price tag on that IP.

Translated wrote:

The Budget Committee calls on the German government to work towards this in the contract negotiations for the "Heavy Transport Helicopter" project,
...
2. that Germany shall obtain the intellectual property rights to the helicopter to such an extent that operation, maintenance, repair, and adaptation and further development are possible independently of the manufacturer of the helicopter, if the manufacturer himself is not willing or able to do so
...
The Budget Committee calls on the Federal Government to inform the Budget Committee of the models offered for operation, maintenance, servicing and adaptation and further development before the call for a "best and final offer" is issued.

- - - -
Some people may argue that this (re)opens the door for a new domestic or European development; however, clearly both cost and time are the primary considerations for this tender. A clean sheet will certainly miss both targets. A new tender has the options:
- less transfer of IP or domestic workshare
- fewer (new) capabilities
- less capability overall, thereby opening the tender to smaller competitors (AW101, H-225, NH90)
- fewer helicopters
- unchanged tender, but hope for less expensive offers

Well being British I would say as an interim to a proper heavy lift buy, get some AW101's in, still more capable than anything else in their fleet save the aging CH-53G's, or is on offer in that range that can be delivered relatively soon.

But what surprises me is Sikorsky, unlike Boeing's large and expanding CH-47 customer base all they seem to have for their new bird is the USMC, so in that sense why did they not make the German's an offer they would find very tempting?
Let's face it, they don't seem to have too many other potential customers lined up, certainly not one like Germany.

mxaxai wrote:

This article (https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/09/zu-t ... eufassung/) suggests that the german government expected significant IP transfer

Seems the Germans are learning from the Chinese!

mxaxai wrote:

less transfer of IP or domestic workshare

Yeah Boeing does hold a tight reign on their IP. As for work share, Boeing is more likely to put work in India than in Europe. They are looking to put as much work in India as they can to win the fighter competition, They already have major parts for The Chinook and Apache made in India.

bt

The CH-53K is something like 1.5 times the cost per frame of a Chinook, so I am not sure there was much LM could really do. The Chinook does seem like the ‘right’ fit to me (especially if re-engined), but the EH-101 as well is a reasonable substitute (what do they really need the super stallion’s for?).

A more flexible spec., perhaps even allowing for something like the AW609 or even an S-92/EC225 to be offered in lower/greater quantities, might make better sense. There’s nothing inherently wrong with 2 bidders (US DoD tends to go that route all the time), but here I don’t think they were realistic in their budget/requirements. (Or, perhaps they were just playing a game pretending to plan to buy them all along, knowing it would wind up getting axed once specs/bids were in.)

“We hereby inform you that the award procedure in the ‘Heavy Transport Helicopter (STH)’ project has been cancelled,” the BMVg said. “As part of the ongoing award process, it was recognised that the project would be unlikely to be realised within the allocated budget while meeting all requirements. The awarding authority of the Federal Office for Equipment, Information Technology and Use of the Federal Armed Forces assessed the available offers as uneconomical and, for this reason, cancelled the award procedure.”

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

So another delay..

I think that opens opportunity for the re-engined Chinooks when the german program is restarted.

Taking the last T55 powered Chinooks of the line later this decade, probably didn't look good enough longer term.

And then there is the Trump government that didn't make friends in Berlin.

Maybe there will be a revival of a European heavy helicopter (Europe First), a beefed up Leonardo Merlin or H160 technology using new design.

https://verticalmag.com/news/airbus-fut ... ackburner/

texl1649 wrote:

The CH-53K is something like 1.5 times the cost per frame of a Chinook, so I am not sure there was much LM could really do. The Chinook does seem like the ‘right’ fit to me (especially if re-engined), but the EH-101 as well is a reasonable substitute (what do they really need the super stallion’s for?).

I doubt that the re-engine will have a positive effect on cost. It's the same engine as the CH-53K. It's also far heavier and more powerful than the current engine, the T55. That usually means more expensive too.

The only benefit of the CH-47 (re-engined) would be that it only needs 2 T-408 engines compared to the 3 engines on the CH-53K, so Boeing can still undercut Lockheed.

mxaxai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

The CH-53K is something like 1.5 times the cost per frame of a Chinook, so I am not sure there was much LM could really do. The Chinook does seem like the ‘right’ fit to me (especially if re-engined), but the EH-101 as well is a reasonable substitute (what do they really need the super stallion’s for?).

I doubt that the re-engine will have a positive effect on cost. It's the same engine as the CH-53K. It's also far heavier and more powerful than the current engine, the T55. That usually means more expensive too.

The only benefit of the CH-47 (re-engined) would be that it only needs 2 T-408 engines compared to the 3 engines on the CH-53K, so Boeing can still undercut Lockheed.

I agree it wouldn't be any cheaper, but again maybe the program is going to reset specs/costs overall to a different total figure. If it were my money (LOL), I wouldn't want the last T-55 powered models, and as per way above in the thread given German ($$) history a future upgrade package would probably be 3 decades in the making before it happens to add the beefier engines later. The substantially upgraded/uprated/updated T-55 that Honeywell is offering to counter the T408 is a valid option (though Germany wouldn't want to be the only buyer of the type/unicorn).

I again just don't know why the Luftwaffe needs a heavy lift chopper in the CH-53/CH-47 category, other than the fact that they've had the capability in the past (the present CH-53G fleet is largely useless any given day, other than for pictures on the ground). My guess is they could revise the spec. down now to include more Euro models as bidders (with a later delivery date, and lower unit costs), but not a new derivative/type.

So almost a zero chance the CH-53K could wind up being selected.

There is a chance that the CH-47 could be cheaper the next go round (minus the engine cost).

This would require that Boeing implement the digital manufacturing process they have incorporated into the T-X and other programs to reduce the cost of the airframe.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

I again just don't know why the Luftwaffe needs a heavy lift chopper in the CH-53/CH-47 category,

Maybe it's not just heavy lift as the French have found the UK's CH-47 very useful in a variety of functions during their African campaign.

bt

Or . . . now the French and German can get together and get a better deal on a CH-47 buy or get their own heavy lift program back on the table.

bt

keesje wrote:

I think that opens opportunity for the re-engined Chinooks when the german program is restarted.

Let's see, cancel a program because it's too expensive, then restart when even more expensive engines are available?

keesje wrote:

Maybe there will be a revival of a European heavy helicopter (Europe First), a beefed up Leonardo Merlin or H160 technology using new design.

Maybe call it H400M?

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think that opens opportunity for the re-engined Chinooks when the german program is restarted.

Let's see, cancel a program because it's too expensive, then restart when even more expensive engines are available?

keesje wrote:

Maybe there will be a revival of a European heavy helicopter (Europe First), a beefed up Leonardo Merlin or H160 technology using new design.

Maybe call it H400M?

Revelation, a program is cancelled until it's back on the table. Specially defense programs & the CH-53s are getting real old. Just new developments, opportunities, priorities on the table now, so push it out. The army will be woried, though, availability of the old CH53s is low.

I think a new European helicopter is doable. Lots of longer term investments, new programs over the last 25 years at Leonardo & Airbus Helicopter, and it translated. https://www.statista.com/statistics/111 ... ufacturer/

texl1649 wrote:

The CH-53K is something like 1.5 times the cost per frame of a Chinook, so I am not sure there was much LM could really do.

It is somewhat more than 1.5 times the cost. The first CH-53Ks cost the US taxpayers $152 mio., or a flyaway cost of $87 mio.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/y ... ce-delays/

For comparison, the CH-47F, depending on the source, lies between $30 mio. and $39 mio. The CH-53K is 5 times as expensive!


No doubt the resident LM shills will be along shortly to claim that everything is fine...

bikerthai wrote:

There is a chance that the CH-47 could be cheaper the next go round (minus the engine cost).

This would require that Boeing implement the digital manufacturing process they have incorporated into the T-X and other programs to reduce the cost of the airframe.

bt

I suspect that the problem was that it was only CH-47 vs CH-53K. The CH-53K is very expensive and it would make sense the Lockheed could not submit an offer for 45 helicopters at 5.6 billion €. Boeing probably knew this and submitted an offer that was less than Lockheed's, but only marginally so, perhaps hoping that Germany would simply increase the budget. Germany, on the other hand, probably couldn't imagine the extremely high price tag of the CH-53K.

If Germany opens the tender to smaller, cheaper competitors, Boeing will need to provide an actually competitive bid. The H225M and AW101 should both be able to meet the fleet size and cost requirements; compare Norway buying 30 AW101 for approx. 2 billion € https://defense-update.com/20131108_nor ... 1_sar.html.

VSMUT wrote:

The first CH-53Ks cost the US taxpayers $152 mio., or a flyaway cost of $87 mio.
For comparison, the CH-47F, depending on the source, lies between $30 mio. and $39 mio. The CH-53K is 5 times as expensive!

The $30-39 mio. are the flyaway cost. So the CH-53K is "only" 2-3 times as expensive, and one could hope that later production models become cheaper. Still too expensive for this tender, though ...

VSMUT and mxaxai I agree. The King Stallion is a unique capability (lifting 35K lbs), but you have to pay a ton for it, as is the case with a lot of USMC programs (V-22, F-35B; the model actually drove a ton of the overall development cost for the F-35) and I’d say the same has been true historically for a lot of their programs (UH1Z/AH1Z, and who can forget their ‘oops’ VXX US-101/VH-71 effort, which became spare parts for Canada eventually, once the affordable, reliable design reached a half billion dollars or so a piece). I again think the EH-101/H-92 might work (both are now pretty mature), but suspect the Germans want a very domestic deal without any substantial American components, as is their right.

Still, the Germans aren’t stupid or naive, and knew when they wrote the spec who would/could bid on it, and a ballpark of what the things cost. I again don’t know their politics but wouldn’t be surprised if it really were a data collection operation. The Rheinmetall package was worth something like $4 billion in offsets, and still wasn’t enough. Perhaps the Israelis or Japanese will be export customers for the type yet; both have very unique sea/deployment scenarios; they’d certainly have the funds accessible to pay for it too...

I think a Chinook fits in a A400M (you got to seperate the tail) a CH53 not. Advantageous for the Chinook I think.

keesje wrote:

I think a Chinook fits in a A400M (you got to seperate the tail) a CH53 not. Advantageous for the Chinook I think.

Way to make up a requirement...

The current CH-53G does not fit in the A400M either. Obviously if transporting the heavy lift helicopter was a requirement it would have been written into both the A400M specs, it wasn't, and the Heavy Lift RW requirements, it wasn't...

Might be nice to have that capability but it clearly isn't a requirement currently and the German Military isn't exactly a dynamic and evolving force.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think a Chinook fits in a A400M (you got to seperate the tail) a CH53 not. Advantageous for the Chinook I think.

Way to make up a requirement...

The current CH-53G does not fit in the A400M either. Obviously if transporting the heavy lift helicopter was a requirement it would have been written into both the A400M specs, it wasn't, and the Heavy Lift RW requirements, it wasn't...

Might be nice to have that capability but it clearly isn't a requirement currently and the German Military isn't exactly a dynamic and evolving force.

And the Germans don't deploy far enough from home to warrant any requirement for transporting heavy lift helicopters any significant distances. And whatever distance the Germans do deploy from Germany, the helicopters can basically fly themselves to where they need to be.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think a Chinook fits in a A400M (you got to seperate the tail) a CH53 not. Advantageous for the Chinook I think.

Way to make up a requirement...
.

Don't change the message. No requirement, I said advantegeous.

ThePointblank wrote:

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think a Chinook fits in a A400M (you got to seperate the tail) a CH53 not. Advantageous for the Chinook I think.

Way to make up a requirement...

The current CH-53G does not fit in the A400M either. Obviously if transporting the heavy lift helicopter was a requirement it would have been written into both the A400M specs, it wasn't, and the Heavy Lift RW requirements, it wasn't...

Might be nice to have that capability but it clearly isn't a requirement currently and the German Military isn't exactly a dynamic and evolving force.

And the Germans don't deploy far enough from home to warrant any requirement for transporting heavy lift helicopters any significant distances. And whatever distance the Germans do deploy from Germany, the helicopters can basically fly themselves to where they need to be.

German CH-53Gs have been active in Afghanistan for almost two decades. And that's how they got there.

Revelation wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

This article (https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/09/zu-t ... eufassung/) suggests that the german government expected significant IP transfer

Seems the Germans are learning from the Chinese!

No. What the German requirements aim at is independence from foreign made spare parts that may not be available in a conflict, and the ability to introduce their own modifications even without the manufacturer's support. Of course it would be cheaper to simply follow the footsteps of the larger operators in the US. But if the US suddenly decides to replace the type that Germany only just introduced, Germany looks stupid as well.

texl1649 wrote:

Still, the Germans aren’t stupid or naive, and knew when they wrote the spec who would/could bid on it, and a ballpark of what the things cost.

The requirements were influenced by various institutions that do not represent the same interests. The very influential Budget Committee of the Bundestag doesn't have the same priorities as the military. It's the usual mess in German arms procurement. Luckily it's not quite as bad as in India.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think a Chinook fits in a A400M (you got to seperate the tail) a CH53 not. Advantageous for the Chinook I think.

Way to make up a requirement...

The current CH-53G does not fit in the A400M either. Obviously if transporting the heavy lift helicopter was a requirement it would have been written into both the A400M specs, it wasn't, and the Heavy Lift RW requirements, it wasn't...

Might be nice to have that capability but it clearly isn't a requirement currently and the German Military isn't exactly a dynamic and evolving force.

There is a requirement that the A400M can transport the NH90 medium lift helicopter. While air-lifting heavy helicopters like the CH-53 has happened in the past, I agree that it isn't a high priority for the military.

The tender was supposed to result in a direct replacement of the CH-53G; also, asking for air-lift ability in this tender would have led to the automatic exclusion of the CH-53K.

If the tender is opened to smaller competitors, I could see them add that aspect to the evaluation criteria but it won't make or break a deal by itself.

texl1649 wrote:

Perhaps the Israelis or Japanese will be export customers for the type yet; both have very unique sea/deployment scenarios; they’d certainly have the funds accessible to pay for it too...

I thought Japan was retiring their CH-53E / replacing them with smaller helis? They could buy the CH-53K of course but I don't see it as something they'd be willing to spend that much money on when they have several other expensive projects that also need funding.

Noray wrote:

Revelation wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

This article (https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/09/zu-t ... eufassung/) suggests that the german government expected significant IP transfer

Seems the Germans are learning from the Chinese!

No. What the German requirements aim at is independence from foreign made spare parts that may not be available in a conflict, and the ability to introduce their own modifications even without the manufacturer's support. Of course it would be cheaper to simply follow the footsteps of the larger operators in the US. But if the US suddenly decides to replace the type that Germany only just introduced, Germany looks stupid as well.

Yes, the whole intent vs capability thing is in play. Germany would intend to do the relatively benign things you list but would have the capability to do whatever it wants from making newer/better helos or major subsystems, or selling replacement parts to other operators etc. I've watched some DW documentaries and one is on how German military products have ended up in some pretty undesireable places. Germany isn't unique for having such issues but once you give away the IP you are very vulnerable to all sorts of unintended consequences.

Revelation wrote:

Noray wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Seems the Germans are learning from the Chinese!

No. What the German requirements aim at is independence from foreign made spare parts that may not be available in a conflict, and the ability to introduce their own modifications even without the manufacturer's support. Of course it would be cheaper to simply follow the footsteps of the larger operators in the US. But if the US suddenly decides to replace the type that Germany only just introduced, Germany looks stupid as well.

Yes, the whole intent vs capability thing is in play. Germany would intend to do the relatively benign things you list but would have the capability to do whatever it wants from making newer/better helos or major subsystems, or selling replacement parts to other operators etc. I've watched some DW documentaries and one is on how German military products have ended up in some pretty undesireable places. Germany isn't unique for having such issues but once you give away the IP you are very vulnerable to all sorts of unintended consequences.

What a wild mess of blown and incoherent accusations.

capability to do whatever it wants from making newer/better helos or major subsystems, or selling replacement parts to other operators etc.

Do you have any factual basis for that fear? Is there even a market for this, speaking of large helicopters and a country that isn't exactly known for low wages? We're neither China nor Turkey.

I've watched some DW documentaries and one is on how German military products have ended up in some pretty undesireable places.

These documentaries usually are about small arms designed and produced in Germany. There are quite a few anti-militarist activists in Germany who will cry wolf at the smallest German arms export and have broad support from the press. However, is there actually any obscure militia somewhere in Africa or the Middle East that needs spare parts for their US-made heavy helicopters?

Noray wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Noray wrote:

No. What the German requirements aim at is independence from foreign made spare parts that may not be available in a conflict, and the ability to introduce their own modifications even without the manufacturer's support. Of course it would be cheaper to simply follow the footsteps of the larger operators in the US. But if the US suddenly decides to replace the type that Germany only just introduced, Germany looks stupid as well.

Yes, the whole intent vs capability thing is in play. Germany would intend to do the relatively benign things you list but would have the capability to do whatever it wants from making newer/better helos or major subsystems, or selling replacement parts to other operators etc. I've watched some DW documentaries and one is on how German military products have ended up in some pretty undesireable places. Germany isn't unique for having such issues but once you give away the IP you are very vulnerable to all sorts of unintended consequences.

What a wild mess of blown and incoherent accusations.

capability to do whatever it wants from making newer/better helos or major subsystems, or selling replacement parts to other operators etc.

Do you have any factual basis for that fear? Is there even a market for this, speaking of large helicopters and a country that isn't exactly known for low wages? We're neither China nor Turkey.

I've watched some DW documentaries and one is on how German military products have ended up in some pretty undesireable places.

These documentaries usually are about small arms designed and produced in Germany. There are quite a few anti-militarist activists in Germany who will cry wolf at the smallest German arms export and have broad support from the press. However, is there actually any obscure militia somewhere in Africa or the Middle East that needs spare parts for their US-made heavy helicopters?

Wow, I speak of 'capabilities', you speak of 'accusations'. Please look in the mirror.

Chinook operators:
Australia
Canada
Egypt
Greece
India[119]
Iran
Italy
Japan
Libya[citation needed]
Morocco
Netherlands
Oman
South Korea
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Spain
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey[120]
United Kingdom
United Arab Emirates
United States

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH ... #Operators

Seems there could be a nice market to service if one had access to the IP, every thing from high wear parts to depot maintenance to systems upgrades to re-engining is in the realm of the possible.

Germany sure must have had the ip for the over 100 Sea Stallions they built themselves.

rlwynn wrote:

Germany sure must have had the ip for the over 100 Sea Stallions they built themselves.

Maybe, but the CH-53K is a completely new aircraft.

mxaxai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Perhaps the Israelis or Japanese will be export customers for the type yet; both have very unique sea/deployment scenarios; they’d certainly have the funds accessible to pay for it too...

I thought Japan was retiring their CH-53E / replacing them with smaller helis? They could buy the CH-53K of course but I don't see it as something they'd be willing to spend that much money on when they have several other expensive projects that also need funding.

Didn't Japan replace it with the Merlin 10 years ago?

rlwynn wrote:

Germany sure must have had the ip for the over 100 Sea Stallions they built themselves.

The authority to build (Final Assembly) of an aircraft does not means having access to the IP of every components.

In some cases, the buyer may be allowed to audit or inspect the IP, but to be able to build parts with the IP is a different liscense. Building spare part by reverse engineering without owning the IP would be considered data rights infringement/black market parts (unless the IP protection have lapse by law).

bt

Sure a new helicopter can be developed. The two main helicopter manufacturers are based in Europe. The main problem is the CH53 are running out of time and the Chinooks offered have some new technology, but also some technology that was already 40 years old 20 years ago, for the next 40 years...

I guess a new competition where Boeing updates the CH47 from nose to tail (incl IP) versus a Airbus/ Leonardo RACER tech proposal would be a better idea. But an interim solution might be required. E.g. used Chinooks.. or Heer CH53 refresh program.


https://chinook-helicopter.com/history/history.html

keesje wrote:

I guess a new competition where Boeing updates the CH47 from nose to tail (incl IP) versus a Airbus/Leonardo proposal would be a better idea. But an interim solution might be required. E.g. used Chinooks..

Sorry keesje, but that's not happening. Germany will not buy used for this competition, and they definitely won't ask for a new clean sheet development.
Reasons why it's a bad idea:
- there is almost no commercial market for heavy cargo helicopters
- there is a very limited military market for heavy helis
- the best configuration for heavy helis is a twin rotor (unless you're the USMC ...)
- the CH-47 has a well established production and maintenance process, a new entrant cannot compete
- there is no critical knowledge to be gained by building something that's slightly larger than one of the many existing European helis
- there are no significant performance gains for a clean sheet over the CH-47
- it's still going to be very expensive to develop
- by the time it enters service, other nations will probably have a new heavy tilt-rotor that outperforms traditional helis

mxaxai wrote:

keesje wrote:

I guess a new competition where Boeing updates the CH47 from nose to tail (incl IP) versus a Airbus/Leonardo proposal would be a better idea. But an interim solution might be required. E.g. used Chinooks..

Sorry keesje, but that's not happening. Germany will not buy used for this competition, and they definitely won't ask for a new clean sheet development.
Reasons why it's a bad idea:
- there is almost no commercial market for heavy cargo helicopters
- there is a very limited military market for heavy helis
- the best configuration for heavy helis is a twin rotor (unless you're the USMC ...)
- the CH-47 has a well established production and maintenance process, a new entrant cannot compete
- there is no critical knowledge to be gained by building something that's slightly larger than one of the many existing European helis
- there are no significant performance gains for a clean sheet over the CH-47
- it's still going to be very expensive to develop
- by the time it enters service, other nations will probably have a new heavy tilt-rotor that outperforms traditional helis

Boeing remanufactures CH-47's for the US Army. The aircraft are stripped down to the bare airframe and rebuilt with new components.

The old Vertol was laid out originally in 1957-1962. It’s incredible there is really any IP left to protect/license/negotiate over. The Chinook is quite unique, and interestingly that is also part of the reason it’s been generally unsuccessful in the civil market. Reman’d 47’s as a stopgap could make sense, and provide an interim Franco-German commonality, I suppose, for a decade or so. The CH-53GA fleet just won’t make it more than a decade even at a nominal readiness level.

If the NH-90’s worked more reliably I’m sure they’d also be considered on an interim basis.

Re: #189, yes Japan did replace their CH-53’s, but are still supposedly interested in the K model. I don’t know the level of interest, but with their expanding ‘mini-carrier’ fleet (including F-35 spares etc.) I could see the interoperability with the USN/USMC as being of interest.

texl1649 wrote:

The old Vertol was laid out originally in 1957-1962. It’s incredible there is really any IP left to protect/license/negotiate over.

This would be true if you are talking about the frames built to the original drawings.

The current batch would have been reengineered in to digital format using new materials (including new metals) to facilitate manufacturing improvements. All the new digital information will have their IP life reset.

Along with the new materials, there would be new strength analysis. It's these analysis that is critical for product support and future mods/upgrades.

bt

The Chinooks are spacey, have generous cg tolerance, have the huge back door and are fast and agile.

So competing / beating it with something better at acceptable costs is going to be a challenge for anyone. That proved to be the case for the last 50 years..

The market is significant, looking at all the (very) old Chinooks around, and more general, the global requirements for vertical lift capacity & range.

keesje wrote:

The Chinooks are spacey, have generous cg tolerance, have the huge back door and are fast and agile.

So competing / beating it with something better at acceptable costs is going to be a challenge for anyone. That proved to be the case for the last 50 years..

The market is significant, looking at all the (very) old Chinooks around, and more general, the global requirements for vertical lift capacity & range.

One should not forget that relying on only one helicopter type across a broad fleet brings it´s own challenges, you´re putting all your eggs into one basket so to speak. We´ve all seen what has happened with the 737Max - that was (the crashes itself aside) just a commercial problem, however taking long. If you´re relying on one type in a conflict situation only that may spell distaster if something similar comes around. We´ve all seen how long the grounding of the H225 took, and the EH101 probably only escaped a similar fate narrowly when the Canadian one crashed.

It may be opportune from a NATO perspective to have two different helicopter types with an about same performance envelope availabe for strategic reasons, simply to have a fall-back solution available. If Germany ops for the C-47 it will be a monolithic heavy lift helicopter structure for decades, which is not good, either.

Still, it surprises me that the quotes coming in were so high. I understand that a lot off effort was put into drafting the tender specification including a very detailled look into the budgeting, too, and I think it was quite obvious to both Sikorsky and Boeing what was available in terms of money and what not. Pokering high, losing now.

One should note that this is the second large scale tender in less than a year where the public hand did not behave as expected by the industry and simply let them go ahead, whatever it will cost. First the order for the MKS180 frigates which went abroad as this was the best bid (understand the local competitor didn´t even put together a proper bid), now the clear - and even public - communication that it won´t be purchased at all costs. Gives the message towards the industry that cost-plus-times or ridiculous pricing are no longer tolerated. Lessons learned from major projects finally have arrived...

Flying-Tiger wrote:

keesje wrote:

The Chinooks are spacey, have generous cg tolerance, have the huge back door and are fast and agile.

So competing / beating it with something better at acceptable costs is going to be a challenge for anyone. That proved to be the case for the last 50 years..

The market is significant, looking at all the (very) old Chinooks around, and more general, the global requirements for vertical lift capacity & range.

One should not forget that relying on only one helicopter type across a broad fleet brings it´s own challenges, you´re putting all your eggs into one basket so to speak. We´ve all seen what has happened with the 737Max - that was (the crashes itself aside) just a commercial problem, however taking long. If you´re relying on one type in a conflict situation only that may spell distaster if something similar comes around. We´ve all seen how long the grounding of the H225 took, and the EH101 probably only escaped a similar fate narrowly when the Canadian one crashed.

It may be opportune from a NATO perspective to have two different helicopter types with an about same performance envelope availabe for strategic reasons, simply to have a fall-back solution available. If Germany ops for the C-47 it will be a monolithic heavy lift helicopter structure for decades, which is not good, either.

Still, it surprises me that the quotes coming in were so high. I understand that a lot off effort was put into drafting the tender specification including a very detailled look into the budgeting, too, and I think it was quite obvious to both Sikorsky and Boeing what was available in terms of money and what not. Pokering high, losing now.

One should note that this is the second large scale tender in less than a year where the public hand did not behave as expected by the industry and simply let them go ahead, whatever it will cost. First the order for the MKS180 frigates which went abroad as this was the best bid (understand the local competitor didn´t even put together a proper bid), now the clear - and even public - communication that it won´t be purchased at all costs. Gives the message towards the industry that cost-plus-times or ridiculous pricing are no longer tolerated. Lessons learned from major projects finally have arrived...

That's my impression too. Also for the next Gen fighter bomber, it seems German government went pragmatic. Reviewing effectiveness of both the Eurofighter and Rafale programs over the last 30 years, they decided to concentrate program management at Dassault, while refusing further strategic partners other than the cooperative Spaniards. Meanwhile they secured that same model for German industry on other large projects with the French.

Your dual source policy might make sense. I expect Chinooks upgrades will proceed. As I said, creating a cost effective competitor is going to be a challenge.

The RACER demonstrator nears roll out at Istres. It will be interesting to see if this technology (speed, range, lower operating costs) is scalable into bigger helicopters. Maybe the German defense committees already got signals there is something valuable to gain, and they are buying time.

Serious question, as I’m not sure I follow, keesje but what components of the RACER could be applied to this class of helicopter? I almost assume any Chinook replacement would necessarily be a tilt-rotor of some sort.

Europe certainly has experienced/capable players there in AW/Leonardo, but it would almost by necessity be a tandem rotor design to really compete on a cost basis; adding any kind of pusher prop element would make it quite enormous (by footprint)/more dangerous from a troop perspective I would assume. You’re the a.net theoretical new Euro plane/design image expert so I’m curious what you think would fit/work.

texl1649 wrote:

Serious question, as I’m not sure I follow, keesje but what components of the RACER could be applied to this class of helicopter? I almost assume any Chinook replacement would necessarily be a tilt-rotor of some sort.

Europe certainly has experienced/capable players there in AW/Leonardo, but it would almost by necessity be a tandem rotor design to really compete on a cost basis; adding any kind of pusher prop element would make it quite enormous (by footprint)/more dangerous from a troop perspective I would assume. You’re the a.net theoretical new Euro plane/design image expert so I’m curious what you think would fit/work.

https://www.helis.com/50s/rotodyne.php



But seriously, no tailrotor opens up some interesting options for a transport helicopter.