Comments on: Senators Drop CSAR-X Letter Bomb on Gates

By: kevin

kevin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:35:47 +0000

All of those airforce chiefs have been fired as of june of 08, now the airforce will get the aircraft they deserve to secure the safety of our pilots, either the 101 or the sikorsky will do the job. The chinook is a great army asset but has no business in the airforce, especially the csar platform. It has a serious brown out problem and will easilly be shot down even the pilots want nothing to do with this aircraft that has rumsfeld written all over it. To the airforce wake up and get the best asset and not the cheapest buy the 101 and get the airbus tankers in the air as quickly as possible.

By: Cortland

Cortland — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:57:59 +0000

Apropos of nothing much… I remember a hovering 47 rolled up the PSP in front of the Phu Loi control tower one day. As I recall, there were no O-1’s on it at the time.
Cortland

By: Unclewilly

Unclewilly — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:00:53 +0000

A long time ago, as a contractor to the DoD agencies, I learned that there were ALWAYS three bidders on projects to comply with the ASPR (later FAR): Kresge, Woolworth and the guy who was “supposed” to get the job! My job as senior proposal writer for a major company was always made easier if I knew that mine would be the Woolworth bid! Oh yes, we always knew. We were told (privately, of course) at the first bidder’s conference.
What’s new?
Incidentally, I do believe that downwash still is a result of weight supported by the swept area of the rotor(s). Or have they changed that engineering hueristic, too?

By: Curt 22

Curt 22 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:22:51 +0000

“I wonder why the AF didn’t have a fly-off or complete mission demo between platforms?“
The flight demo occurred as C. Foskey described, but one could not have considered this a “Fly off” or use the results in such a manner.
Why??? Because none of the contenders delivered an aircraft that met all of the USAF’s CSAR-X requirements.
I suspect there are some who provided less capable machines for this flight demo and who stand to profit from the CSAR-X decision will tell you this doesn’t matter…but to the customer, the ability to achieve all the requirements in the time allotted is all that matters.

By: C. Foskey

C. Foskey — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:56:04 +0000

The basic aircraft flight evaluation (BAFE) took place at Nellis AFB in Nevada late 2005.
“The USAF used the process to demonstrate the rival aircraft

By: SC

SC — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:21:59 +0000

All posts on this have been quite interesting and pretty fair to each platform…so all things being equal, I wonder why the AF didn’t have a fly-off or complete mission demo between platforms? Sure there are pros/cons to that as well, but in all the discussion I’ve seen here (and elsewhere), nothing had addressed why there wasn’t some sort of fly-off. Other considerations such as O&S/MILCON are obviously not addressed by the fly-off, but at least the handling/performance/etc questions are. I’m sure the answer if asked would be cost and/or schedule prohibition, but at least there would be a much better feel for the performance aspect.

By: C. Foskey

C. Foskey — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:51:11 +0000

Excellent summary HAWK DRIVER.
What it sounds like to myself (and others on the 92 design team) is that the sheer size and age of the 47 was prohibitive from the start, with respect to many of your aforementioned points. Needless to say, we always viewed CSAR-X as a dogfight between our 92 and the 101, just as VXX went down. I dont think anyone ever considered the possibility that the AF would seriously consider procuring the 47 for CSAR ops after the LZ incidents we read about in Afghanistan in 2002.

By: C. Foskey

C. Foskey — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:23:16 +0000

> The RFP specifically outlined the need for a Medium Lift helicopter
»1. no it doesn’t
»2. even if it did, i’ve seen the Chinook referred to as a medium-lift helicopter even before csar-x competition started (the H-53 is heavy lift)
1. “The PRV will provide Personnel Recovery (PR) forces with a medium-lift vertical take-off and landing aircraft that is quickly deployable and capable of main base and
austere location operations for worldwide PR missions.“
–0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY, RDT&E Budget Item Justification, 02/05
This was reflected in the RFP.
2. Boeing’s own material markets the 47 series as a “tandem-rotor, heavy-lift, high-altitude” platform. The Air Force claims it had a matrix showing the 47 as a medium lift helicopter. When asked to produce it, turns out it didnt exist.
http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2492327&C=airwar
> The noise, downwash, footprint, maintenance, and vulnerability concerns seem to outweigh any of the Air Force’s weak rationale.
»1. the downwash is no worse than the others
»2. how is the maintenance worse?
»3. how is it more vulnerable than the others? (all helicopters are vulnerable to ground fire)
1. Chinooks and AH-1 Cobras make up two-thirds of all downwash incidents all the way back to the 1970s. You can argue about downwash velocities using PAXMAN all you want at various altitudes, but Army actual measurements showed the downwash to be >100mph @ 90ft
2. The GAO stated “Sikorsky and LMSI assert that the agency

By: Curt 22

Curt 22 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:14:31 +0000

This is a good forum to discuss rotary wing issues…the same arguments keep going around in circles, but I’ll try not to repeat what others have said!
1 — Why not upgrade or buy new H-60 airframes?
– Because the USAF has determined the current capabilities of the H-60 cannot meet its needs on the battlefield today for range and high-hot work, and no improvements can be made to over come these shortfalls.
– This is not an indictment of the H-60, I think it is the best helicopter ever built…but the USAF has decided it needs a lot more payload, range, survivability etc and you can’t stuff 10 lbs of “stuff” in a 5 lb sack.
2 — The USAF established thresholds for all the “Noise, downwash, footprint, maintenance, and vulnerability” issues…“
– Clearly each acft excels in some areas where the others do not. Selecting the winner by cherry picking SOME measures of performance and ignoring others would indeed be unprofessional, and this is exactly what we hear from some who have personal agendas at the heart of their argument.
4 — “US Army and SOCOM does NOT utilize the H-47 for CSAR or a CSAR type missions.“
– Army SOF uses the MH-47 for infil — exfil of SOF troops over long distances in denied airspace. Are we to believe this very different is this from the CSAR mission?
5 — “…take a look at the –47, –101 and the –92 current service levels and tell me which one meets or exceeds the current USAF mission demands (flight hour requirements) and has an availability rate greater than 95%?“
– Availability rate…based upon what…vendor claims that “My acft is better than yours?” Numbers from “slick” acft that are not used in the same environment, ranges, duration of flt or payloads that CSAR-X is required to operate in are a meaningless measure.
– It would be a disservice to the taxpayer for the USAF base its decision solely on the “sales pitch” of vendor reliability who seek to profit from the decision.
As observers of this tragic comedy…in the end we are left with one question: Who do we believe has the best interests of the rescue forces at heart?
– Those who work for the USAF and are responsible to the men and women who will take the aircraft into battle?
– Or should we believe vendors claims and finger pointing motivated by the hopes of great profit for themselves?
Are we also to believe it’s a coincidence that the letters of Senators from NY, CT, and TX, where the losing contenders would have built their acft are not interested in dollars for their states…and from retired generals who are now, or who have worked for companies that have agreements to manufacture parts with the losing contenders have the best interests of the war fighters in mind?

By: irtusk

irtusk — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:25:05 +0000

> The RFP specifically outlined the need for a Medium Lift helicopter
1. no it doesn’t
2. even if it did, i’ve seen the Chinook referred to as a medium-lift helicopter even before csar-x competition started (the H-53 is heavy lift)
> The noise, downwash, footprint, maintenance, and vulnerability concerns seem to outweigh any of the Air Force’s weak rationale.
1. the downwash is no worse than the others
2. how is the maintenance worse?
3. how is it more vulnerable than the others? (all helicopters are vulnerable to ground fire)