My good friend Mike Goldfarb — who edits the Worldwide Standard blog — put together a good report on the Air Forces search for a new combat search and rescue helicopter to replace its ageing HH-60 Pave Hawks.
The Air Force awarded the contract last year to Boeing for a CSAR version of the massive CH-47 Chinook. Remember that the Pave Hawk is a medium-lift helo, the 47 is a heavy-lift one along the lines of the CH-53.
Boeings competitors immediately protested the decision to Congress and the GAO upheld their protests, telling the Air Force to redo the contract. And the services chief was lukewarm on the pick anyway
The Boeing HH-47 costs more and doesn’t meet the requirements for consideration, but that’s not all. The aircraft is, simply put, not a good fit for the search and rescue mission. And this is where Congress has gotten involved. In February, Air Force chief of staff General Michael Moseley told a Congressional hearing that “the Chinook would have not been his first choice, but that the Air Force would make it work,” according to the Hill. And later told reporters that “I am not sure [the HH-47] is the one that I would have picked, but I am not the guy that picks.”
Im not sure where to come down on this one, but Goldfarb weaves together all the disparate strands of the story in a pretty concise tale
Of the criteria that were evaluated, some appear irrelevant to the CSAR mission, and were not included in the initial RFP, while other crucial factors seem to have been given little weight. The Lockheed US101 has three engines, and can fly on just two. The Chinook has two engines and in theory might fly for a time with one, but “how long and how far it can fly that way depends on load and conditions,” according to the company spokesmen. For some reason this was not scored by the Air Force in its evaluation. Cargo requirements, at which the Chinook excels, were given preference by the Air Force in evaluations–though cargo would seem to be a secondary consideration in search and rescue missions.
(Read the rest of Goldfarbs story here)
What no OSPREY?!?!? It is a bit hilarious that Lockheed is calling a Brit/Italian bird the US101.
Grandjester: The Osprey was actually a player for CSAR-X until they re-wrote the requirements specifically to keep it out. The Air Force didn’t want to mess with it, quite frankly; at the time the CV-22 DT schedule was WAY behind and getting behinder.
High downwash patterns notwithstanding, the V-22 could be a decent CSAR platform.
Yeah Ward, I know, was being sarcastic (check out my previous comments on Osprey threads). Did the Chinook choice have anything to do with the high altitude issues in Afganistan?
Why not the NH-90? Because it’s European? Buy USA?
Well hey, if the government can pass a Patriot Act, why can’t Lockheed build a Patriot Plane?
Or, uh, chopper. As the case may be.
It boggles my mind why they would replace the –60G with a 47. The downwash alone will make it so much harder for the rescue crews to be able to do the “simple” task of recovery of a downed airman. The –47 is much too large, not very agile, and in a situation where you need to ingress and egress an area with heavy fire…she becomes a nice juicy target. I must say, out of the three contestants (left) the –47 is the worst possible choice. The –92 would be the best choice. Smaller, Agile, and hey, the USAF has had wonderful success with Sikorsky. I would see them using the MH-53M for the CSAR roll before they would use the –47.
the EH101? HA! That junk aircraft is failing in the VP VH-71 roll before it ever flies it. They are so behind the timeline and past budget, they are lucky the Marines are not pulling the plug on that bird right now…the only thing going for it is the fact that they have three engines…and for safety reasons, That is a nice touch.
Out of the three, I would choose the HH-92
~HerkEng
Macaca, the EH101…er sorry, the US101 is just as european as the NH-90…
the CV-22 is out of the compitition because Bell/Boeing pulled it out (so it would not compeet with the CH-47)
It boggled my mind in the 80’s that the AF would replace the HH-53 with a 60. The idea of long range CSAR in the 60 hasn’t worked well if there was any kind of limiting factors to the evader’s mobility. Where would you put the litter in a 60 when the cargo compartment is filled with a fuel bladder? The down wash on a 47 is little different then that of the HH-53 and it seemed to work okay. Has anyone bothered to compare range, speed and survivability when they compare the US101, S-92 or H-47?
Since I’ve flown CSAR missions, I have a little knowledge on this subject (Iraq & Afghan). The Pavehawk has never fit the bill for this mission. Too small, under powered in High DAs on and on and on.….
Any naysayers about the H-47 being a CSAR bird just don’t know what they are talking about. Currently the RAF are using H-47’s for MedEvac missions in afghan and the H-47’s usually outrun their Apache escorts.
As far as maneuverability of the H-47, take a look at the Dutch H-47 doing crazy airshow maneuvers on youtube. You will be amazed.
If you know your history the H-53, (HH-3’s too) both helos did CSAR missions back in Vietnam. That is where the “Jolly Green” name came from. Guess what?? The H-53 is bigger than the H-47.
In addition the MH-53 Pavelow was developed and purchased specifically for the CSAR mission in the late 70’s. After Desert One AFSOC took the helos to do special ops missions. thus the H-60 Pavehawk become the default CSAR aircraft…
The AF Chief of Staff has stated that he wants an aircraft quickly. The H-47 is the only combat proven performer in the bunch that can be fielded rapidly. It out performs all the competitors in every class except cost per flight hour. Cost per flight hour is the only thing is question by the GAO report…
rotorhd
–Osprey–too many question marks (more a technology demonstrator than a finished product)
–US101—only the management is US,brilliant marketing ploy (Lock Martin more of a sales agent than a defense contractor on this one.) Brits prefer it to the chinook in highrisk places like Iraq because of the three engines, but thats the only thing it has going and The US army doesn’t seem to have a problem using the chinook in Iraq.
–Chinook–proven system already in wide use, fewest question marks, shortest lead time, most definite cost estimate (fewer variables that can lead to cost overuns,) surprisingly manueverable, survivable and fast (no power lossed to tail rotors making sideways thrust, its all pushing the bird forward.)
–S-92–the Canadians like’em enough to use them in maritime support(safety and reliability a must.) There’re built with better quality control than the US101 (made here not Europe.) If you want something new this is probably the safest bet. Sikorsky does a reasonably good job of costing this sort of thing and a good chunk of the devolopment work has already been done.
–In summary, the US101 is probably the worst possible pick. Thats why the whole thing will probably be kicked around until it gets picked. The Air Force has never gotten away with picking the right airframe. The A-10 and F-16 barely made it past the paper monster (and its a good thing they did.)
rotorhd said:
“If you know your history the H-53, (HH-3’s too) both helos did CSAR missions back in Vietnam. That is where the “Jolly Green” name came from. Guess what?? The H-53 is bigger than the H-47.“
But, rotorhd, if you know your history, CSAR crews back then consistently critiqued the HH-53 as “too big.” That was cited in multiple after-action and end-of-tour reports by airmen of that era.
And if you know your survivability data you will also know that the number or rounds absorbed by a helicopter is diretly proportional to its size.
I’m not trying to pick on rotorhd and I’m ambivalent about the ultimate choice the AF makes (since each offeres different capabilities the AF sorely needs), but I wanted to make sure the telling of the history was accurate.
And, yes…Iraq twice and Afghanistan once.
having spent some time around Army Spec Ops, yea a fast medium lift has appeal but the 47’s today are not the old Nam era ones they are very fast and manuverable. Yea it a tad big, but this gives you a platform with a huge space inside for various task, it can defently defend the guys on the ground better than an other options, in CSAR and related spec ops task this is huge. also, was it not the 47’s the only ones that can reach the Mt. tops in recent ops? I say we take an set up four realistic missions, with sensors and aggressors team on the ground, two fighter related, one an army 47 gound with full troop load and a b-2 down run all contestants an you will find the 47 kick everyones tail.….last note commonality.….maint…and logistics.
While there have been some good points raised here, there have been many silly ones too.
Yes it is true the RAF use Chinook for medevac (not strictly CSAR). It is also odd that being European seems to be a ‘quality’ to some and not a builder location!!
I guess that would make the F35 rubbish too, as it has a lot of British components/development in it!
Back on track, the Chinook is also the loudest, and has the biggest footprint/downwash, which are major drawbacks in CSAR.
The RAF do actually want Chinooks for CSAR as they operate well in hot and high conditions, and are cheaper than EH101 (Merlin) to operate.