Re: Commanche alternatives?

[Kevin Brooks]

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
> The money will go into the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook
> helicopter and UH-60 Black Hawk. What is interesting is that the
> Navy and AF are basically using variants of the Black Hawk (Navy
> CH-60 and SH-60R, AF MH-60). Like the JSF, we have become a one
> aircraft military. Looks like it just makes it easier to merge
> the AF into the Navy someday.
>
> The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
> funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
> 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.

We have to have a replacement for the CH-47 now? One wonders what they are
doing with that whole CH-47F program...

Brooks

<snip>

[Thomas Schoene]

R. David Steele wrote:

>> We have to have a replacement for the CH-47 now? One wonders what
>> they are doing with that whole CH-47F program...
>
> It is a bit long in the tooth. Look at how the Navy dropped its
> sister, the CH-46.

The CH-47F is a rather extensive remanufacturing program that's going on
right now. The Army expects it to let these aircraft serve into the 2020s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47f-ich.htm

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Thomas Schoene]

R. David Steele wrote:
> The money will go into the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook
> helicopter and UH-60 Black Hawk. What is interesting is that the
> Navy and AF are basically using variants of the Black Hawk (Navy
> CH-60 and SH-60R, AF MH-60). Like the JSF, we have become a one
> aircraft military.

Makes sense, really. Why reinvent dynamic systems for all these different
roles that happen to be in the same basic weight class?

> Looks like it just makes it easier to merge
> the AF into the Navy someday.

You're not serious, are you?

>
> The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
> funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
> 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.

CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47.
(they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's
about it.)

The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty clear:
the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably an
S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the
MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). This is already operational and by most accounts
it works rather well for the VERTREP job.

The Navy/Marine counterpart to the CH-47 is actually the CH-53, which I
believe is getting a SLEP to run another couple of decades. So is the CH-47.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-53x.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47f-ich.htm

Long term replacement plans are pretty hazy, as one might expect for a
program (or programs) that won't deliver hardware for at least a decade, if
not two.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> R. David Steele wrote:

<snip>

> > The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
> > funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
> > 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.
>
> CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47.
> (they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's
> about it.)
>
> The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty clear:
> the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably an
> S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the
> MH-60S (formerly CH-60S).

Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic
airframe. And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is battling
Henry J. Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless?

Guy

[Henry J Cobb]

R. David Steele wrote:
> The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
> funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
> 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.

If the Army went for the V-22 would the AF object that it's "fixed wing"?

-HJC

[Mike Kanze]

Guy,

>And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is battling Henry J.
Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless?

You are not alone.

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)


"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
> > R. David Steele wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
> > > funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
> > > 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.
> >
> > CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47.
> > (they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs.
That's
> > about it.)
> >
> > The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty
clear:
> > the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably
an
> > S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear:
the
> > MH-60S (formerly CH-60S).
>
> Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic
> airframe. And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is
battling
> Henry J. Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless?
>
> Guy
>

[Thomas Schoene]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> Thomas Schoene wrote:
> The CH-46's replacement in the Navy
>> is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S).
>
> Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same
> basic airframe.

I shouldn't like to argue, but a lot of Navy webpages, including sites like
HC-8 homepage, say the Navy flies CH-46Ds.

http://www.navy.mil/homepages/hc8/

Comparatively few mention the UH-46 designation. OTOH, there are a lot of
mentions these days that simply say H-46; I think they gave up trying to
keep the different designations straight.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Thomas Schoene]

R. David Steele wrote:

>> The CH-47F is a rather extensive remanufacturing program that's
>> going on right now. The Army expects it to let these aircraft serve
>> into the 2020s.
>>
>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47f-ich.htm
>
> And everyone else is going to the V-22 platform instead?

Nope, you don't have the plot at all here.

The V-22 is not in the same lift class as the CH-47 or CH-53E. It's a
medium-lift platform, not a heavy.

The only buyers on V-22 are the Marines (replacing CH-46s) and Air Force
Special Operations Command (replacing MH-53s, which are smaller twin-engine
versions of the H-53, not the bigger three-engine CH-53E version the Marines
fly).

Right now there is no final plan to replace any of the heavy lift helos in
any of the services.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Thomas Schoene]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
> R. David Steele wrote:
>> The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
>> funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
>> 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.
>
> If the Army went for the V-22 would the AF object that it's "fixed
> wing"?

The Army already flies plenty of fixed wing aircraft, and are talking about
replacing existing ones as aprt of the same plan that does away with
Comanche.

An armed Army Osprey might annoy the Air Force, though, thanks to Key West.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:31:46 GMT, R. David Steele
> wrote:

>read that the ASW platform, MH-53E Sea Dragon, was to be replaced
>by the CH-60.

Wherever you read that...throw it away! Neither the MH-53E or CH-60
have anything to do with ASW. MH-53E is a minesweeping (and
logistics) bird; CH-60S (now MH-60S) is meant for a similar role.

>What gets me confused is that we have the SH-60R which are
>rebuilt older H-60s. Now is the MH-60 going to be the primary
>helo or is it the CH-60? I gather that the AF uses the
>nomenclature is MH-60. The CH-60 is Navy.

There is no such thing as a SH-60R, a CH-60, or a rebuilt SH-60
anymore.

MH-60R (formerly SH-60R) is the ASW helo; it is now new-build, not
remanufacture.

MH-60S (formerly CH-60S) is the VERTREP/SpecOps/MCM helo; it is also a
new-build, not remanufacture.

I don't think *anyone* flies anything called CH-60.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Thomas Schoene]

R. David Steele wrote:
>>>> The CH-47F is a rather extensive remanufacturing program that's
>>>> going on right now. The Army expects it to let these aircraft
>>>> serve into the 2020s.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47f-ich.htm
>>>
>>> And everyone else is going to the V-22 platform instead?
>>
>> Nope, you don't have the plot at all here.
>>
>> The V-22 is not in the same lift class as the CH-47 or CH-53E. It's
>> a medium-lift platform, not a heavy.
>>
>> The only buyers on V-22 are the Marines (replacing CH-46s) and Air
>> Force Special Operations Command (replacing MH-53s, which are
>> smaller twin-engine versions of the H-53, not the bigger
>> three-engine CH-53E version the Marines fly).
>>
>> Right now there is no final plan to replace any of the heavy lift
>> helos in any of the services.
>
> Sorry to play so dumb. But I am doing a lot of catch up. I did
> read that the ASW platform, MH-53E Sea Dragon, was to be replaced
> by the CH-60.

The MH-53E is for mine countermeasures (and fleet logistics), not ASW. It
may be replaced by the MH-60S, which used to be called the CH-60S. But they
are being less definite about this plan than they were a couple of years
ago, so I suspect the Sea Dragon may hold on for a while yet. There si
pretty good evidence the smaller helo simply can't do all of the MH-53's
missions (especially on the logistics side)

>
> What gets me confused is that we have the SH-60R which are
> rebuilt older H-60s. Now is the MH-60 going to be the primary
> helo or is it the CH-60? I gather that the AF uses the
> nomenclature is MH-60. The CH-60 is Navy.

The Navy is using M for multimission, but there are two different Navy
MH-60s. These will operate together, in different roles. Neither is
"primary."

MH-60R is the "old" SH-60R, replacing both the SH-60B and SH-60F for ASW,
ASUW, and various other missions. These will now be new builds, as this was
actually cheaper over theor total lifetime than rebuilds.

MH-60S is the "old" CH-60S. This is a new aircraft for VERTREP, SAR, SOF
support, and possibly airborne MCM. It replaces Navy H-46s, HH-60s, and
maybe MH-53s.

> The way the services go about this is mind numbing!!!

Yes, sometimes. The Navy MH-60 designations are less than helpful, IMO.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 03:07:03 GMT, R. David Steele
> wrote:

>Now does the AF use the nomenclature of MH-60 as well?

As far as I know, they always have used either HH-60 or MH-60.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

[Kevin Brooks]

"Andrew C. Toppan" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 03:07:03 GMT, R. David Steele
> > wrote:
>
> >Now does the AF use the nomenclature of MH-60 as well?
>
> As far as I know, they always have used either HH-60 or MH-60.

As does the Army use the MH-60K, for its special operations versions
assigned to 160th SOAR. The failure to follow a unified nomenclature across
the four services is a bit troubling. The USMC is going to field the MV-22
for general lift requirements...while the USAF fields the CV-22 for special
operations use (even though their current special operations troop carriers
all carry "M" prefixes). Hopefully we'll confuse the opposition more than we
do ourselves...

Brooks

>
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
>

[Steve Hix]

In article >, Henry J Cobb >
wrote:

> R. David Steele wrote:
> > The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
> > funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
> > 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.
>
> If the Army went for the V-22 would the AF object that it's "fixed wing"?

Why ever would they care? It's not a jet.

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > Thomas Schoene wrote:
> > The CH-46's replacement in the Navy
> >> is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S).
> >
> > Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same
> > basic airframe.
>
> I shouldn't like to argue, but a lot of Navy webpages, including sites like
> HC-8 homepage, say the Navy flies CH-46Ds.
>
> http://www.navy.mil/homepages/hc8/

So they do.

> Comparatively few mention the UH-46 designation. OTOH, there are a lot of
> mentions these days that simply say H-46; I think they gave up trying to
> keep the different designations straight.

You may be right;-)

Guy

[Roger Curry]

Minor corrections to below: (I was th OPS O at HC-5, the first Navy squadron
to transition from the H-46 Seaknight to the MH-60S Knighthawk)
1. Navy CH-60 is now the MH-60S (it is a marinized Blackhawk airframe)
2. SH-60R is now to be called the MH-60R (will replace the SH-60B and F)
3. Navy CH/UH/HH-46D is being retired, USMC CH-46E will be around for a
while
4. H-46 is by no means a "heavy helo". Max gross weight for the MH-60 line
is nearly the same. But, basic weight is less...thus payload weight is
higher (although cubic capacity is much less)

The MH-60S is a capable replacement for the H-46D, but the 46's tandem rotor
configuration and large constant cross section cabin made it better for
logistics. The 60 is much more of a multi-mission aircraft, with provisions
for force protection, mine hunting, CSAR, etc... I still wish we would have
waited for the S-92 or EH-101 (US-101 now). Either of these helos would
have been a better replacement for a naval muti-mission helicopter. I asked
Sikorsky about this back in 1996 when the idea of a Navy Blackhawk variant
was first discussed... keeping the Blackhawk line open was a big concern.

All the best,
Roger


"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
> The money will go into the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook
> helicopter and UH-60 Black Hawk. What is interesting is that the
> Navy and AF are basically using variants of the Black Hawk (Navy
> CH-60 and SH-60R, AF MH-60). Like the JSF, we have become a one
> aircraft military. Looks like it just makes it easier to merge
> the AF into the Navy someday.
>
> The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
> funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
> 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.
>
> |What will the US use?
> |
> |There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.
> |
> |How about licensed production of the Tigre!!
> |
> |I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not
> |without major upgrades...
> |
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-comanche24feb24,1,5217878.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
> THE NATION
> Army Cancels Comanche Helicopter
> By Esther Schrader
> Times Staff Writer
>
> February 24, 2004
>
> WASHINGTON - In a sign the Pentagon is beginning to feel a budget
> squeeze, the Army on Monday canceled its Comanche helicopter
> program, bringing an end to the development of a craft that had
> been 21 years and $6.9 billion in the making.
>
> The termination, one of the biggest in Army history, contrasts
> with Pentagon budget battles of two years ago, when Defense
> Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the Army's $11-billion
> Crusader artillery system canceled despite intense lobbying by
> senior Army officials to keep it going. This time, the Army
> itself decided to take the hit.
>
> The Army had little choice, senior officials said. The RAH-66
> Comanche, an armed reconnaissance helicopter derided as a Cold
> War design with little utility in today's battles, was uniquely
> vulnerable to an argument repeatedly made by Rumsfeld: that
> bloated, big-ticket projects conceived during another era are
> putting Pentagon efforts to modernize at risk.
>
> By eliminating the Comanche, the Army frees up billions of
> dollars to buy more of the helicopters that are being used widely
> in Iraq and Afghanistan - UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache and
> CH-47 Chinook helicopters, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army
> chief of staff, told reporters at the Pentagon. The money also
> would be spent to upgrade about 1,400 existing helicopters to
> improve protection against shoulder-launched missiles, as well as
> for speeding up work on unmanned aerial vehicles, officials said.
>
> "It's critical to the Army now - as we're at war - and for the
> future that the funds that were identified for the Comanche
> program in the fiscal year 2005 budget, as well as those funds in
> the future year's defense plan, remain with Army aviation,"
> acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee said, standing beside
> Schoomaker at a Pentagon news conference.
>
> To date, nine Army helicopters have been shot down in Iraq and
> Afghanistan, and 32 lives have been lost in those incidents, Army
> Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody told reporters.
>
> When the Comanche was conceived in 1983, the Army faced a far
> different threat. Army officials were eager for a lightweight,
> stealthy helicopter that would be able to move ahead of large
> tank formations in a conventional war to gather and distribute
> intelligence and attack the enemy.
>
> But since then, the Pentagon has developed any number of aircraft
> that meet those needs - Black Hawk and Apache helicopters to
> attack, and unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites for
> reconnaissance.
>
> Before Monday's cancellation, the Comanche program encountered
> one technical setback after another. It was overhauled six times
> as the cost per helicopter more than quadrupled, from $12.1
> million per aircraft in the early days to $58.9 million two years
> ago. It was then that Rumsfeld cut the program in half.
>
> Schoomaker said Monday's decision will free up $14.6 billion that
> had been designated for Comanche research and procurement through
> 2011. The money will be used to buy 796 new versions of the Black
> Hawk, Apache and Chinook helicopters, as well as upgrading
> choppers already in use.
>
> "It's a big decision, but we know it's the right decision,"
> Schoomaker said. He said the Army also plans to invest more
> heavily in unmanned aircraft, which have proved their worth in
> Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> In terminating the Comanche program, the Army will have to ante
> up between $450 million and $680 million in cancellation fees to
> Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., the main contractors for
> the helicopter, Cody said.
>
> "With the Comanche, the Army has made a difficult choice," said
> Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for
> Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank. "They
> have said, what we face now is a situation in which Comanche, a
> system designed to avoid radar detection, is not applicable to
> the problem we face in Afghanistan and Iraq. The principal
> problem we face there is from shoulder-fired missiles, and they
> are proliferating.. We need to get better at fighting and winning
> the war we're in right now."
>
> But with the Pentagon budget ballooning - the procurement budget
> alone is projected to rise 30% between now and 2009 - the federal
> deficit growing steadily larger, and the military operations in
> Iraq and Afghanistan costing more than $4 billion each month, the
> military services are beginning to feel the pressure.
>
> "Like the other services, the Army is increasingly under pressure
> from the contradictions in the Bush budget," said Loren Thompson,
> a military aviation specialist at the Lexington Institute think
> tank. "Things are likely to get tight; the tightness usually hits
> first in the weapons counts."
>
> With the Pentagon budget up more than $80 billion since 2001,
> Republican lawmakers are beginning to take a closer look at
> supporting growing defense spending. Leading Democrats on Capitol
> Hill have been increasingly vocal on the issue.
>
> In a statement on Monday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon),
> chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the Comanche
> cancellation "reflects the difficulty that the services are
> facing with the cost of modernization requirements now coming to
> the fore."
>
> From the first days of the Bush administration, there has been
> talk of canceling a number of major military aviation projects,
> including the V-22 Osprey hybrid, developed by the Marine Corps,
> and the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor. But so far, the Comanche has
> been the only casualty. Sikorsky officials have said that several
> of the helicopters are in production at a Bridgeport, Conn.,
> plant that now faces an uncertain future.
>
> The White House budget office recently asked the Pentagon to
> provide independent reviews of the Comanche and the F/A-22.
>
> "There's an opportunity here," said Krepinevich. "Transformation
> is not only a matter of what you buy, it's what you stop buying.
>
> "The question is, what are the other services doing? They have
> budget problems too. It's very difficult to see how they'll be
> able to afford everything that's on the books, especially if, as
> expected, there starts to be downward pressure on the defense
> budget. This could be a harbinger of things to come."
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>

[Paul Michael Brown]

> Roger Curry > wrote:

> I was th OPS O at HC-5, the first Navy squadron
> to transition from the H-46 Seaknight to the MH-60S Knighthawk.

> I still wish we would have waited for the S-92 or EH-101 (US-101 now).
> Either of these helos would have been a better replacement for a naval
> muti-mission helicopter.

I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with
regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as the
next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside, which
is the better *aircraft* for the mission?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Paul Michael Brown" > wrote in message
...
> > Roger Curry > wrote:
>
> > I was th OPS O at HC-5, the first Navy squadron
> > to transition from the H-46 Seaknight to the MH-60S Knighthawk.
>
> > I still wish we would have waited for the S-92 or EH-101 (US-101 now).
> > Either of these helos would have been a better replacement for a naval
> > muti-mission helicopter.
>
> I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with
> regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as the
> next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside, which
> is the better *aircraft* for the mission?

Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. The 101 has some possible
advantages over the S-92 in a tactical role, but as a VIP transport there
would not be much justification of one over the other *except* for political
considerations. IMO the chance that we will see a non-US designed helo
selected for use by HMX-1 is slim-to-none; OTOH, the 101 stands at *least*
an even chance of getting the USAF rescue helo contract that we can expect
to be offered up for competition in the near term.

Brooks

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:15:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Paul Michael Brown" > wrote in message
...
>> I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with
>> regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as the
>> next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside, which
>> is the better *aircraft* for the mission?
>
>Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. The 101 has some possible
>advantages over the S-92 in a tactical role, but as a VIP transport there
>would not be much justification of one over the other *except* for political
>considerations. IMO the chance that we will see a non-US designed helo
>selected for use by HMX-1 is slim-to-none; OTOH, the 101 stands at *least*
>an even chance of getting the USAF rescue helo contract that we can expect
>to be offered up for competition in the near term.

IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
rather more proven. On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day.
I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh
-101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:15:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Michael Brown" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with
> >> regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as
the
> >> next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside,
which
> >> is the better *aircraft* for the mission?
> >
> >Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. The 101 has some possible
> >advantages over the S-92 in a tactical role, but as a VIP transport there
> >would not be much justification of one over the other *except* for
political
> >considerations. IMO the chance that we will see a non-US designed helo
> >selected for use by HMX-1 is slim-to-none; OTOH, the 101 stands at
*least*
> >an even chance of getting the USAF rescue helo contract that we can
expect
> >to be offered up for competition in the near term.
>
> IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
> that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
> rather more proven.

The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day.
> I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh
> -101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up.

I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It
does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly
outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92. OTOH, the
S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in
widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101
from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M
remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being
such a decidedly better platform than the S-92.

Brooks

>
> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - drink faster

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
>> IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
>> that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
>> rather more proven.
>
>The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
>HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

Fair enough, but I'd have thought for the President you'd want a
rather more proven airframe. IIRC these are not *any* government
orders for the H-92 yet, although that's mainly due to a lack of
contracts to bid for (except a few European ones). Be interesting to
see how the H-92 versus EH101 contest in Canada ends up. The EH should
have the advantage after the Cormorant order, but who knows.

>On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day.
>> I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh
>> -101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up.
>
>I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It
>does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly
>outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92.

Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
added I'd say that's a significant difference.

>OTOH, the
>S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in
>widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101
>from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M
>remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being
>such a decidedly better platform than the S-92.

Not really, because as you say the S-92 isn't being bid as it's too
large, the same reason the EH101 was scrubbed (I was suprised the
Merlin even made the short list). So at most it says something about
bidding a large helicopter in a medium copter contest.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
> >> that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
> >> rather more proven.
> >
> >The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
> >HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.
>
> Fair enough, but I'd have thought for the President you'd want a
> rather more proven airframe. IIRC these are not *any* government
> orders for the H-92 yet, although that's mainly due to a lack of
> contracts to bid for (except a few European ones). Be interesting to
> see how the H-92 versus EH101 contest in Canada ends up. The EH should
> have the advantage after the Cormorant order, but who knows.
>
> >On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day.
> >> I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh
> >> -101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up.
> >
> >I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive".
It
> >does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly
> >outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92.
>
> Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
> cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
> 150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
> mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
> added I'd say that's a significant difference.

Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of
sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role (and
as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22 for
the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor.
Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot operations.

>
> >OTOH, the
> >S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in
> >widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the
EH-101
> >from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M
> >remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being
> >such a decidedly better platform than the S-92.
>
> Not really, because as you say the S-92 isn't being bid as it's too
> large, the same reason the EH101 was scrubbed (I was suprised the
> Merlin even made the short list). So at most it says something about
> bidding a large helicopter in a medium copter contest.

Well, the NH90, which remains in the running, is a bit larger than the
UH-60M, too.

Brooks

> ---
> Peter Kemp
>
> Life is short - drink faster

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
> > >> that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
> > >> rather more proven.
> > >
> > >The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
> > >HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

The commonality of the S-92 with the H-60 appears to be greatly exaggerated. It
may have started out that way, but the numerous changes since have really made
it a new helo with some concepts borrowed from the H-60. However, by the time
they could get into service, I imagine the commercial users will have put enough
hours on it to eliminate any major worries in that area. But Sikorsky's just
making the first commercial delivery now, so ordering anytime soon would still
be taking a bit of a risk.

<snip>

> > Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
> > cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
> > 150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
> > mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
> > added I'd say that's a significant difference.
>
> Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of
> sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role (and
> as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22 for
> the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor.
> Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot operations.

<snip>

AvLeak mantioned a month or two ago that the proposed "VH-92" was being given a
power boost to bring its hot/high performance into line with the "US-101." I
don't remember the details (it was a more powerful version of the CT-7), but the
Sikorsky person they were talking to may have said it would exceed the US-101's
hot/high performance.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role
is
> > > >> that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
> > > >> rather more proven.
> > > >
> > > >The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use
by
> > > >HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.
>
> The commonality of the S-92 with the H-60 appears to be greatly
exaggerated. It
> may have started out that way, but the numerous changes since have really
made
> it a new helo with some concepts borrowed from the H-60. However, by the
time
> they could get into service, I imagine the commercial users will have put
enough
> hours on it to eliminate any major worries in that area. But Sikorsky's
just
> making the first commercial delivery now, so ordering anytime soon would
still
> be taking a bit of a risk.

I am not sure how much risk you are talking about; Sikorsky is ballyhooing
the fact that the S-92 is the first and only helo to have so far been
certified under the FAA Part 29 requirements. It has been flying since 1998,
apparently without major mishap, a total of five prototypes logging hours
(about 2500 to date) over the years since then. The critter even won the
Collier Trophy year before last. They already have over 20 firm sales, some
seventeen options, and a handfull of others have made deposits towards
future purchase. based upon all of that, this appears to be a pretty
low-risk program. As to commonality with the S-70/UH-60 family, it shares
the same rotor system as the UH-60M (albeit the latter has blades a foot
shorter); as one source noted, the "engines and dynamic components are
basically those of the Blackhawk family".

>
> <snip>
>
> > > Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
> > > cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
> > > 150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
> > > mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
> > > added I'd say that's a significant difference.
> >
> > Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of
> > sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role
(and
> > as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22
for
> > the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor.
> > Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot
operations.
>
> <snip>
>
> AvLeak mantioned a month or two ago that the proposed "VH-92" was being
given a
> power boost to bring its hot/high performance into line with the "US-101."
I
> don't remember the details (it was a more powerful version of the CT-7),
but the
> Sikorsky person they were talking to may have said it would exceed the
US-101's
> hot/high performance.

Very possible. From what I have read the S-92, while being certified at
lower payload capacity than the EH-101, has actually flown (in and out of
ground effect) at about the same maximum gross weight as the EH-101
advertises.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>
>