HH-47 best choice for CSAR?
dump...@hotmail.com
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/532valiw.asp
The HH-47 may not have been the best choice for the new CSAR helo.
What do you guys think?
dump...@hotmail.com
>
> The HH-47 may not have been the best choice for the new CSAR helo.
>
> What do you guys think?
No one?
John Keeney
Not read the requirements, proposals nor reports.
That being said, some of the CSAR crews I've talked with were all for
it.
Big cabin for medical work or just picking up bigger crews at a go
(think B-52 or Blackhawk with infantry squad). Good range, speed and
altitude performance, all of which have been issues in Afganistan.
As to the sponsons limiting angles of fire: a gun on each side plus
one on the ramp trump two that can point straighter down but not back.
Another big issue was that fielding could be done very quickly.
Ian MacLure
news:1177134040.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
And if you want to fire straight down a gun mount for the belly
winch hatch might be doable.
IBM
Henry J Cobb
The Spec Fairy arrived in the middle of the night to rewrite the USAF
spec to match the Boing submission, as usual.
-HJC
Meaner than you
demands?
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:GtWdnYJ-NMnYJLfb...@io.com...
Pat Flannery
dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> What do you guys think?
>>
>
> No one?
>
A Chinook sounds like a pretty large and unmaneuverable target for
something that could be going into a very hot combat zone.
To me, it sounds inferior to what we now have, with the possible
exception of range.
This is one of those jobs the V-22 Osprey was designed for, so why
aren't we looking into using that?
Pat
dump...@hotmail.com
According to:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/v22-bows-out-of-csarx/prv-competition/index.php
The V-22 was in the CSAR-X competition, but dropped out.
Paul J. Adam
<fla...@daktel.com> writes
>A Chinook sounds like a pretty large and unmaneuverable target for
>something that could be going into a very hot combat zone.
This was a problem for us in 2003 in Majar al Kabir: Parachute Regiment
multiple in a very unfriendly situation (same one that killed six RMP at
the police station). A Chinook came to lift them out but got badly shot
up on approach: several crew badly wounded and airframe seriously
damaged. (Very good flying to get it back to Sparrowhawk, but they
couldn't lift out the Paras).
Not sure if something like Merlin could have got in, grabbed them and
got out, but it's at least a smaller target.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)co<dot>uk
dump...@hotmail.com
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/04/squabbling_over.html
Apparently, most missions for CSAR helos don't involve CSAR.
dump...@hotmail.com
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003477.html
If the HH-47 gets axed, which of the remaining competitors would be
better.
The US-101? Or the H-92?
Harry Andreas
dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
H-92
"World's Safest Helicopter"
First helo in the world certified to EASA/JAA safety standards.
Also first certified to FAR part 29 Amend 47
--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
dump...@hotmail.com
> In article <1178555350.189484.79...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > More on the CSAR-X decision:
>
> >http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003477.html
>
> > If the HH-47 gets axed, which of the remaining competitors would be
> > better.
>
> > The US-101? Or the H-92?
>
> H-92
> "World's Safest Helicopter"
> First helo in the world certified to EASA/JAA safety standards.
> Also first certified to FAR part 29 Amend 47
>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur
Yet the US101 won the bid for the new Presidential helo.........
Harry Andreas
dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 7, 5:15 pm, andr...@computer.org (Harry Andreas) wrote:
> > In article <1178555350.189484.79...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > dumpst...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > More on the CSAR-X decision:
> >
> > >http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003477.html
> >
> > > If the HH-47 gets axed, which of the remaining competitors would be
> > > better.
> >
> > > The US-101? Or the H-92?
> >
> > H-92
> > "World's Safest Helicopter"
> > First helo in the world certified to EASA/JAA safety standards.
> > Also first certified to FAR part 29 Amend 47
>
> Yet the US101 won the bid for the new Presidential helo.........
Different mission, different profiles, different maintenance requirements,
and how big is the VH-71 fleet? 23 a/c
The EH101 has had problems and was grounded after crashes in
the UK and maybe Denmark(?)
Rotor hub cracking was the culprit and affected may country's SAR fleets
Canada selected the H-92 for their MHP mission and that means a lot of
airframes. That was despite the Canadian Coast Guard operating EH101s.
Being selected for Presidential helo doesn't affect the competition
that much IMO.
Andrew Chaplin
news:andreas-1005...@147.16.85.59...
Une précision: the Canadian Coast Guard does not operate Cormorant, the
Canadian Forces' Air Command does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-149_Cormorant
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Harry Andreas
Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
Correction noted, thanks
dump...@hotmail.com
Harry Andreas
dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The USAF is planning a broad second look at CSAR's costs. See:
>
> http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=18597
"In the original CSAR-X contest, Lockheed Martin drew poor risk
ratings because of its performance on the U.S. Navy's VH-71
presidential helicopter program, which uses the same US 101 aircraft
competing for the Air Force CSAR-X program. That helicopter is made
by Italian conglomerate Finmeccanica SpA's AgustaWestland unit. In
the VH-71 contest, it beat out Sikorsky's H-92, which also is competing
for CSAR-X. "
IME the risk ratings are extremely important. No program manager
wants to manage a risky program because his career is tied to
success of the program. If the program fails so does he.
This makes low risk a very attractive selection criteria.
dump...@hotmail.com
dump...@hotmail.com
dump...@hotmail.com
dump...@hotmail.com
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=19527
The HH-47 has problems with "brownout".
dump...@hotmail.com
Is the Chinnok's rotor downwash really that bad? Or are the
competitors simply
exaggerating the problem for their own benefit?
Art Greer
recall if in a hover.
Art Greer
<dump...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183509912.2...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Dan
> If you think this is a bad downwash try an H-53! 125 knot down wash as I
> recall if in a hover.
> Art Greer
>
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Gordon Beaman
This discussion doesn't make sense to me...isn't it true that the
downwash from ANY helicopter would be directly porpotional to it's
total weight and it's accelleration (climbing descending or
hovering)?...how could it possibly be otherwise?...
--
Gord
(use gordon in email)