I got an interesting email yesterday from a combat veteran CSAR pilot. He makes some good points on the whole debate over the current CSAR-X requirements and protest, and I’d like to share them with DT readers with his permission:
(From retired Lt. Col. Charles D. Brown, former CSAR HH-53 pilot and veteran of the Vietnam evacuation and Mayaguez rescue)
The major issue in the contract comes from in the change from ‘mission’ ready to ‘flight’ ready. As a retired Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) pilot I can tell you that the seemingly insignificant difference between ‘flight ready’ and ‘mission ready’ is anything but insignificant. So, a bit of explanation. Boeing’s Chinook can be ‘flight’ ready in the 3 hours it takes to put the helicopter back together after being off loaded from a C-17. But, ‘flight ready’ simply means that it can be flown on a formal maintenance check flight to verify that all the flight controls work exactly as necessary. To get the heavy-lift, Chinook into a C-17, you have to disconnect flight controls and remove major flight components. When you put it back together, you have to have a specially qualified flight crew take the aircraft up on a functional check flight before the aircraft can be used for a mission.
This maintenance check flight is supposed to happen in daylight and in good visual flight weather. Off load the Chinook at night or in bad weather, or have something go amiss during reassembly, and you might wait a day or two to have a ‘mission ready’ aircraft.
The Chinook is a good cargo helicopter. We need its heavy lift capability in our helicopter fleet. A CSAR helicopter must carry survivors, a basic crew and weapons but heavy lift and large size is not a requirement for CSAR. Its all about not being shot down. CSAR is about flying low over hostile enemy territory. You are there to ‘sneak in, grab survivors fast, and get the hell out’ before the enemy knows you have been there. Thats will be more difficult to achieve with a larger, noisier helicopter. Then theres the challenge of finding a landing zone big enough to accommodate a helicopter the size of the Chinook, landing being preferable to using a hoist, especially if there are multiple people to pick up.
In short, the difference between flight ready and mission ready is a major issue. Anyone who has flown helicopters knows that they are maintenance intensive. The helicopter that meets mission requirements with the fewest maintenance and check flight requirements is a winner. Speed counts in getting CSAR on scene. Less time for the enemy to search for survivors and prepare anti aircraft fire for the CSAR they know is coming. It’s a big deal to the squadron and the pilots trying to fly the mission, and a really big deal to the downed, possibly injured warfighter caught behind enemy lines.
Survivors are in a life-or-death situation where every minute counts, and any delays that might be required to get a Chinook ‘mission ready’ from ‘flight ready’ are unacceptable. If the military requirements are for a helicopter that can be airlifted by cargo aircraft to a theater and be rapidly mission ready, I’m happy the Air Force didn’t opt to overlook this ‘technicality’ and I suspect families, like mine, with loved ones in Iraq are too.
– Christian
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
So what exactly are the
> Survivors are in a life-or-death situation where every minute counts, and
> any delays that might be required to get a Chinook ‘mission ready’ from
> ‘flight ready’ are unacceptable.
except i would dare say most of the time CSAR assets will already be in theater and won’t have to be flown in via C-17
ie most of the time this is a non-issue
I find it amusing that Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment uses MH-47s for all kinds of clandestine penetration missions on a routine basis. It presumably loads them in the back of C-5s and C-17s…in addition to aerial refueling and self-deploying. I’m not so certain you want to be aerial refueling over enemy territory, however, which speaks well for the added endurance of the Chinook versus the others.
The extra power of the Chinook has proven its worth repeatedly in Afghanistan where other helicopters had problems. Recall the live footage of the H-60 losing tail rotor authority in an Air Force civil rescue and crashing down the mountain. That can happen with any single rotor aircraft attempting to hover out of ground effect at altitude.
I would think it would be an advantage to be able to put ground troops in the Chinook to secure the LZ as wounded are loaded…multiple wounded, which other aircraft might have difficulty with. In addition, personnel recovery can involve more than just downed airmen.
Finally, apparently the USAF and other services used the CH-53 for this mission for years. Why was that huge aircraft any different than a Chinook with regards to rotor wash, LZ size, signature, noise, etc. At night you will hear any helicopter coming…but you won’t have a clue where it’s exact location is.
Other considerations:
- Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment routinely conducts clandestine penetration with MH-47s
- I’m wagering they load them on many a C-5 and C-17, and also aerial refuel and self-deploy
- Chinook has extra endurance, and although all aircraft being considered may aerial refuel, you probably don’t want to attempt it over enemy territory
- Chinooks routinely excel at high altitude in Afghanistan where other helicopters have problems.
- Recall the HH-60 civil rescue on the mountain where tail rotor authority was lost and it tumbled down the mountain. That can occur with an single rotor aircraft with a tail rotor
- Large aircraft can rescue more victims, and personnel recovery is not always about a couple of airmen. They can also carry ground troops to secure the LZ. MH-47s support very capable door gun weapons
- USAF, other services, and presumably this writer used the CH-53 for years for CSAR. How is that any different from an LZ size, noise, rotor wash, low level flight perspective? Any helicopter is easily heard at night. Hearing it and knowing exactly where it is at are two different things…especially at 160 knots.
Sorry for double post…thought I had lost the first one
I am a huge fan of the Chinook in CSAR. Blackhawks are dang sweet but they are more limited in were they can go. Also you can put more guns on a Chinook than a Blackhawk.
Good example of how a seemingly minor (to the uninformed) change can in fact be quite significant.
If your going to redeploy your unit half way across the globe this might be a problem. But most of the time they simple take off from base and fly to their mission, and fly back. Chinook is better at this.
Here is an impressive Chinook Rescue image:
despite its bulk that machine can done some impressive things, in the right hands:
Chinook in Afghanistan JPG Image:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_6X7cfHlQBC0/RyjjN4v5-6I/AAAAAAAAAF8/3XJiSRlqT1s/s1600-h/chinook_rescue.jpg
I wasn’t sure if some of this video was real at first… but one thing is clear, the flight demonstration pilots must be insane. :-)
“Footage of Boeing Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Helicopter”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DOfP124_sU
What about the V-22?
Or using one or two different types of rescue choppers? Yea, use the HH-47, but in conjunction with the HH-60, or the AH/MH-6J Littlebird, both of which the 160th use. Different choppers for different kinds of rescues?
Let me guess, the writer was not a Chinook flyer.
Teardown and Buildups can be done shorter than he thinks. I should know, I have only done 29 or so of them. Most of the time in as little as 24 hours thanks to “planning” time.
When was the last time a Blackhawk did a Pinnacle landing? Um wait, they can’t. So a Chinook can land a RAMP down on top of a mountain where no Helicopter other than it can and onload and offload… Hmm. Wonder if that is useful in Afghan, seeing as how it is done all the time?
Besides, what aviator in his right mind wants a rescue bird that was just shipped overseas to be flung out on a mission an hour after arriving in theater? The mission/flight ready arguement is invalid.
And once again, how many litters for patients can a Chinook hold versus a Blackhawk? Oh, if time matters, then which one is faster? Hold on, which one could hold a field hospital?
And nois? Oh dear gods above did this pilot just suggest a Blackhawk has a Whisper mode like in Airwolf???
Please think before letting your pilots near a computer.
With all due respect Lt. Col. Charles D. Brown.
I was a Chinook pilot for more than 17 years – recently retired. It’s worth noting the following:
On the issue of the 3-hour build up:
The 3 hour build-up segment is part of a larger requirement to deploy a specified distance and be mission ready in a specified number of hours. The H-47 is the only platform to have demonstrated this capability in real world situations with hours of margin. I know this because I
They simply want an airframe with longer legs for msc. insertion and extraction. If it can do CSAR as well…. now the CSAR crews may have a different view of things, wanting “to get out of trouble faster than they got into it”
I feel that the Sikorsky would be the best fit on just the parts availability alone. The HH-60 it would replace is Sikorsky and its sister the MH-53M is also a Sikorsky product so then, why would you throw the Boeing product in there (while the US ARMY is having parts issues with the MH/CH-47s).
security systems