Comments on: Who’s CSARX?

By: nightsta1ker

nightsta1ker — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 02:29:04 +0000

The Osprey has been a disaster. They can’t even hold a hover in one place and they have THREE TIMES the downwash of a Chinook. They are also MORE massive in size, and due to the layout of the aircraft the Air Force has already determined that hoist operations on an Osprey are not feasable. The Osprey is about the most expensive and WORST decision the military has made in decades. Meanwhile, the Chinook has been extremely successfull at the SAR mission with the US, UK and AU Armies. It can do rescue missions in the high mountains of Afghanistan where Blackhawks and most other helicopters cannot even hover. I think the HH-47 would have been an excellent choice.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:18:27 +0000

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.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:47:20 +0000

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.

By: Another rotorhd

Another rotorhd — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:36:18 +0000

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.

By: bobyrsuncle

bobyrsuncle — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:24:17 +0000

–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.)

By: rotorhd

rotorhd — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:10:47 +0000

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

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:48:47 +0000

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?

By: HerkEng

HerkEng — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:12:34 +0000

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)

By: HerkEng

HerkEng — Sat, 05 May 2007 14:25:45 +0000

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

By: The other other other Max

The other other other Max — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:28:16 +0000

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.