Commanche alternatives? [Archive]

Kevin Brooks

February 25th 04, 01:04 AM

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" wrote
> >
> > "John Cook" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > What will the US use?
> > >
> > > There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.
> >
> > Which is what we have the Apache for.
> >
> > >
> > > How about licensed production of the Tigre!!
> >
> > I don't think so. Why step *down* from the current Apache?
> >
> > >
> > > I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not
> > > without major upgrades...
> >
> > It is being upgraded. A models are being rebuilt as D models. D models
> will
> > receive suitable upgrades as needed. What we *need* are new light
utility
> > helos for the ARNG, and this requirment has already been mentioned as a
> > possible destination for some of the previously planned Commanche funds.
>
> What's the status on Apache airframes? About 800 airframes built for the
US
> Army and as near as I can tell, the Army is planning to upgrade about 500
> to -D standard. Are the balance available to be upgraded?

The Global Security website claims that "all" of the A models are to be
upgraded, but that may have been predicated upon the planned Commanche
fielding displacing a portion of the Apache fleet. The fielding plan I saw
indicates D model fielding will continue through around 2009, but that
report was from 2000, so... The plan called for a final force of 25 Apache
battalions. With 18 aircraft per divisional attack battalion and 21 per
corps battalion, you are looking at a total force of just under 500
airframes (assuming around 14 DIV battalions and 11 corps battalions). Could
the remainder be upgraded? I don't see why not, though it may require some
more structural replacement for the earliest high-hour airframes. Do they
plan to do so? I don't know, and I have not seen anything that indicates
that is the case. I would expect there to be a lot of decisions made or
announced in the near future in view of the recent news, affecting how the
aviation force will look Army-wide (to include the ARNG elements) given the
demise of the Commanche. I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a
new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not unrealistic
(and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program), destined
for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG outfits
that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long.

Brooks
>
>

Raymond Chuang

February 25th 04, 03:33 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> And I'm betting that some of the first "real" attack UCAV helos will be
> based off of lessons we've leanrd on the Comanche. Yank out the
> human-carrying parts of the Comanche, leave off the more sophisticated
> systems, scale the airframe down by about 50%, and you'd have a heckuva
> nice little attack robot for a fraction of the cost.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that a "black" program to develop a UCAV
helicopter that incorporates a lot of the what was learned on the RAH-66
program is probably in an advanced development stage already. A stealthy
UCAV helicopter with RCS a small fraction of what the RAH-66 already
achieved and very low noise levels could be perfect for taking on al-Qaeda
or other terrorist organizations in their operational areas at night.

--
Raymond Chuang
Sacramento, CA USA

Kevin Brooks

February 25th 04, 04:23 AM

"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

February 25th 04, 04:40 AM

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

February 25th 04, 04:46 AM

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

February 25th 04, 06:19 AM

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

Guy Alcala

February 25th 04, 07:39 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

<snip>

> I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a
> new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not unrealistic
> (and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program), destined
> for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG outfits
> that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long.

BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the details of
where the money's going.:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040223-0484.html

Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing OH-58Cs?
Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or something
similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more OH/AH-6s
at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller than a Huey,
but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less maintenance-intensive. If
you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more UH-60s and
have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with CH-47Fs,
UAVs etc.)

Guy

Kevin Brooks

February 25th 04, 08:06 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a
> > new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not
unrealistic
> > (and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program),
destined
> > for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG
outfits
> > that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long.
>
> BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the
details of
> where the money's going.:
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040223-0484.html
>
> Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing OH-58Cs?

But if you reread the article you provided, you'll note the requirement is
to replace the 58's *and* the Hueys. The 58C's are currently serving in
three major roles in the ARNG--as cav scouts in the divisional cav
squadrons, as observation aircraft (equipped with FLIR) in the RAID
detachments (drug interdiction and homeland security), and as "caretaker"
airframes for the AH-1 inits and Huey units that have already lost their
aircraft. The 412 would not be ideal in the cav scout role, but that is only
16 aircraft per ARNG division (figuring an eventual force of no more than
six ARNG divisions, you are talking about less than 100 aircraft, and likely
less if the Guard drops down to the four division level). It would be an
excellent replacement for the Huey, especially in regards to the homeland
defense mission. The article noted a total requirement of some 300 airframes
to replace the older Kiowas and the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would
not rule the 412 out as a competitor.

> Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or
something
> similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more
OH/AH-6s
> at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller than a
Huey,
> but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less maintenance-intensive.
If
> you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more
UH-60s and
> have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with
CH-47Fs,
> UAVs etc.)

As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are
pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on homeland
defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money and
buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would
appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any
more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not to,
integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought only
UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency plan
force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to
integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
early--who knows?

I did find the bit about replacing the C-23's of interest. The way they
phrased that (wanting a more capable aircraft), I'd bet that the folks at
LMCO and Alenia (IIRC that is the right firm) can expect a likely C-27J
order in the not-too-distant future. The Guard folks have been squeaking
about just that possibility for a year or two now already.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

John Cook

February 25th 04, 08:27 AM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:24:18 -0600, "t_mark" > wrote:

>> I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not
>> without major upgrades...
>
>Um ... why?
>

The A model is way behind, the D is better but needs sensor suite,
avionics upgrades.

Then theres the supportability issues the MMH/Fh are large by
comparision to latter designs.

Thats just some areas that I know about, I'm quite confident there
are many others.

cheers

Lyle

February 25th 04, 11:27 AM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:24:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>> What will the US use?
>>
>> There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.
>
>Which is what we have the Apache for.
>
>>
>> How about licensed production of the Tigre!!
>
>I don't think so. Why step *down* from the current Apache?
remember that the tiger comes in two versions, the antitank verison
and the combat support version. The two problems with the Tiger is
that its French and in the same class as the Cobra. so we would have
to pay big bucks to update it to fire US Weapons, when we could just
buy the Cobra instead. Saying this we should look for a helicopter
that can do combat support (escort,recon,A/A) saveing the apaches for
the heavy in your face fighting.

IMO whats going to happen is that we are going to put a stripped down
version of the commanche into service, minus all the crap that dosent
work/dont need, and with a change in the skin material of the aircraft
to make it alot cheaper. Then reincorporate the technology when it
becomes workable.

Or we could take a Cobra and incorporate the Comanches technology into
it.

>
>>
>> I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not
>> without major upgrades...
>
>It is being upgraded. A models are being rebuilt as D models. D models will
>receive suitable upgrades as needed. What we *need* are new light utility
>helos for the ARNG, and this requirment has already been mentioned as a
>possible destination for some of the previously planned Commanche funds.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Cheers
>

Henry J Cobb

February 25th 04, 03:30 PM

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 Marron

February 25th 04, 03:57 PM

>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"?

In the civilian arena, the V-22 is neither in the "Fixed Wing" -OR-
the "Rotorcraft" category. The FAA has created an entirely brand new
aircraft category for the V-22 called "Powered Lift" which is designed
solely for tilt-rotor aircraft (see: FAR 61.163).

John Hairell

February 25th 04, 04:20 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:46:01 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

[stuff snipped]

>> 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.)
>

I'd argue with that - the CH-47A was originally the YCH-1B, which was
a derivative of the YCH-1A, which was the Vertol 107 (militarized into
the CH-46). I'd say there's more similarities than there are
differences. You can see at a glance that the designs are related,
and they both relate to their predecessor, the CH-21.

John Hairell )

Mike Kanze

February 25th 04, 06:44 PM

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
>

Rune Børsjø

February 25th 04, 07:40 PM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:51:37 +1100, John Cook >
wrote:

>How about licensed production of the Tigre!!

Yeah, because as we all know, it ain't good enough if it ain't built
in the states :-p

Anywho, is it my imagination, or does the Tigre look like a cross
between an Apache and a Cobra? I bet the euros claimed no coincidence
there, right? :-)

Rune Børsjø

February 25th 04, 07:44 PM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:05:52 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>...and the crunching sound you're going to hear is the machines hitting
>the ground after real pilots start blowing the little critters out of
>the air...

It only takes one.

Rune Børsjø

February 25th 04, 07:46 PM

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a couple
>of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
>they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to targeting

How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

Chad Irby

February 25th 04, 08:46 PM

In article >,
Rune B?rsj? > wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:05:52 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >...and the crunching sound you're going to hear is the machines hitting
> >the ground after real pilots start blowing the little critters out of
> >the air...
>
> It only takes one.

Well, it only takes one that *works*.

And even the most optimistic folks are telling that it's going to be a
generation or so before there's an effective air-to-air dogfighting UCAV.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Keith Willshaw

February 25th 04, 08:52 PM

"Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a couple
> >of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
> >they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to targeting
>
> How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

Keith

John S. Shinal

February 25th 04, 09:25 PM

"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

>The Navy/Marine counterpart to the CH-47 is actually the CH-53,

I have to wonder why the CH-53E or its kin isn't a viable
fall-back if the Osprey eventually fails. Is it just the problem of
fitting them on smaller decks ? I know they have a mighty big
footprint, but a friend who's a helo professional has a few great
stories of CH-53s doing amazing parking jobs after a hurricane came
through here a few years ago. The rotor wash knocked him flat on his
ass, though.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Rune Børsjø

February 25th 04, 09:31 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:52:00 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>You havent heard of IFF I take it

Lot of good it's gonna do you in an urban or even sparsely populated
scenario? If they're really going to replace helos it's going to have
to come down to AI or somebody sitting far, far away looking through a
videocamera... are you willing to entrust your life to a simple
computer program, or a stickjock computernerd, sitting thousands of
miles away in a trailer, eating pizza, drinking zima, and blowing up
everything in sight in the hopes of achieving a highscore?

I'm not...

Rune Børsjø

February 25th 04, 09:35 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:46:36 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Well, it only takes one that *works*.
>
>And even the most optimistic folks are telling that it's going to be a
>generation or so before there's an effective air-to-air dogfighting UCAV.

Air to air is an entirely different game, though. As is tank-busting.
As for replacing attack helos alltogether, I don't see it happening in
the foreseeable future. At least not if you have friendly troops on
the ground. But I wouldn't mind say sending a swarm of them into enemy
open territory looking for armor or structures, or even baiting and
retaliating.

Peter Kemp

February 25th 04, 10:05 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:31:56 +0100, Rune Børsjø > wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:52:00 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>>You havent heard of IFF I take it
>
>Lot of good it's gonna do you in an urban or even sparsely populated
>scenario? If they're really going to replace helos it's going to have
>to come down to AI or somebody sitting far, far away looking through a
>videocamera... are you willing to entrust your life to a simple
>computer program, or a stickjock computernerd, sitting thousands of
>miles away in a trailer, eating pizza, drinking zima, and blowing up
>everything in sight in the hopes of achieving a highscore?

As opposed to now when you're relying on a stickjock a few miles away
(or tens of miles with JDAM), eating nothing and drinking water, and
blowing.......

AI may be a problem, but if it's human eyes ona video screeen then the
only difference is the latency of the satellite link and the
resolution of the imaging device, which could well be better for a
newer UCAV than a TIALD/Litening/LANTIRN pod of indeterminate age.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Chad Irby

February 25th 04, 10:20 PM

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
>
> You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

February 25th 04, 10:22 PM

In article >,
Peter Kemp > wrote:

> AI may be a problem, but if it's human eyes ona video screeen then the
> only difference is the latency of the satellite link and the
> resolution of the imaging device, which could well be better for a
> newer UCAV than a TIALD/Litening/LANTIRN pod of indeterminate age.

That's why we need planes in the air. If the other guys manage to fly
something that the sensors won't acquire, or if they jam your IFF,
having a pair of Mk I Eyeballs on site is pretty important. And if
you're looking at high-def video, bandwidth issues are *not* trivial.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Guy Alcala

February 25th 04, 10:25 PM

Lyle wrote:

> IMO whats going to happen is that we are going to put a stripped down
> version of the commanche into service, minus all the crap that dosent
> work/dont need, and with a change in the skin material of the aircraft
> to make it alot cheaper. Then reincorporate the technology when it
> becomes workable.
>
> Or we could take a Cobra and incorporate the Comanches technology into
> it.

As the DoD transcript clearly states, they're going to put the Comanche's
avionics capability into the Block III Apaches.

Guy

Guy Alcala

February 25th 04, 10:26 PM

John Cook wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:24:18 -0600, "t_mark" > wrote:
>
> >> I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not
> >> without major upgrades...
> >
> >Um ... why?
> >
>
> The A model is way behind, the D is better but needs sensor suite,
> avionics upgrades.

See the transcript, re: Block III Apaches.

Guy

Guy Alcala

February 25th 04, 10:40 PM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a
> > > new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not
> unrealistic
> > > (and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program),
> destined
> > > for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG
> outfits
> > > that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long.
> >
> > BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the
> details of
> > where the money's going.:
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040223-0484.html
> >
> > Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing OH-58Cs?
>
> But if you reread the article you provided, you'll note the requirement is
> to replace the 58's *and* the Hueys. The 58C's are currently serving in
> three major roles in the ARNG--as cav scouts in the divisional cav
> squadrons, as observation aircraft (equipped with FLIR) in the RAID
> detachments (drug interdiction and homeland security), and as "caretaker"
> airframes for the AH-1 inits and Huey units that have already lost their
> aircraft. The 412 would not be ideal in the cav scout role, but that is only
> 16 aircraft per ARNG division (figuring an eventual force of no more than
> six ARNG divisions, you are talking about less than 100 aircraft, and likely
> less if the Guard drops down to the four division level). It would be an
> excellent replacement for the Huey, especially in regards to the homeland
> defense mission. The article noted a total requirement of some 300 airframes
> to replace the older Kiowas and the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would
> not rule the 412 out as a competitor.

From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're getting
rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them with UH-60s,
and putting a new OH out for bid.

> > Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or
> something
> > similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more
> OH/AH-6s
> > at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller than a
> Huey,
> > but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less maintenance-intensive.
> If
> > you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more
> UH-60s and
> > have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with
> CH-47Fs,
> > UAVs etc.)
>
> As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are
> pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on homeland
> defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money and
> buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would
> appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any
> more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not to,
> integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought only
> UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency plan
> force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to
> integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
> early--who knows?

At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that, and want the Guard
to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which means
they've pretty much got to have the same equipment. While a 412 probably costs
less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the separate
training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't make sense
economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and modified
AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z.

> I did find the bit about replacing the C-23's of interest. The way they
> phrased that (wanting a more capable aircraft), I'd bet that the folks at
> LMCO and Alenia (IIRC that is the right firm) can expect a likely C-27J
> order in the not-too-distant future. The Guard folks have been squeaking
> about just that possibility for a year or two now already.

Yeah, that was my reading too. They may compete it with the CN-295, but I
figure the odds of that winning are right up there with Congress agreeing to buy
Airbus tankers. Of course, if the CN-295 were to have American engines and
avionics and be assembled here, it would be pretty similar to the C-27J as far
as American content goes. But it's nice to see the Army get back the
intra-theater tactical lift they lost when the AF took the Caribous. It
certainly makes far more sense that the Army operate these than the USAF. Of
course, with the exception of supporting A-10 (and potentially F-35B) operations
from FOB, the USAF has little or no need of the rough-field STOL capability of
the C-130 to support their own intra-theater missions --they're all support for
Army (or occasionally Marine) ops.

Guy

Guy Alcala

February 25th 04, 10:50 PM

"John S. Shinal" wrote:

> "Thomas Schoene" wrote:
>
> >The Navy/Marine counterpart to the CH-47 is actually the CH-53,
>
> I have to wonder why the CH-53E or its kin isn't a viable
> fall-back if the Osprey eventually fails. Is it just the problem of
> fitting them on smaller decks ? I know they have a mighty big
> footprint, but a friend who's a helo professional has a few great
> stories of CH-53s doing amazing parking jobs after a hurricane came
> through here a few years ago. The rotor wash knocked him flat on his
> ass, though.

In addition to the size issue (spotting factor 2.5 vs. the V-22's 1.7, the standard
being the CH-46 at 1.0), the CH-53E/X lacks maneuverability, has too much capacity in
the basic mission, and lacks armor (which could be added, but at a detriment to its
primary heavy-lift mission). The CH-46 and MV-22's primary mission is tactical troop
transport, the CH-53's primary mission has always been heavy-lift. It's had to take
on many of the tactical troop transport missions of the CH-46 because of the
shortcomings of range, payload and lack of AAR capability of the latter, not because
it was particularly well-suited for the missions. Fall-back for the MV-22, should it
fail (and that's increasingly unlikely, as the HROD testing went well and the various
departments/individuals in DoD that were worried about it have all given it a green
light since), then it would almost certainly be either an S-92 or US-101, as they're
in the right size range. The US-101's a bit big, while the S-92 was specifically
designed as a CH-46 replacement in case the MV-22 went south.

Guy

Keith Willshaw

February 25th 04, 11:26 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> >
> > You havent heard of IFF I take it
>
> You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> spoofed and jammed quite easily?
>
> You have some of the following problems:
>
> IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.

Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall

> IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
>
> IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.
>

As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action

Keith

Chad Irby

February 25th 04, 11:48 PM

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> > >
> > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
> >
> > You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> > spoofed and jammed quite easily?
> >
> > You have some of the following problems:
> >
> > IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> > IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
>
> Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall

But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.

> > IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
> >
> > IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.
>
> As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action

Still a couple of orders of magnitude better than any UCAV IFF we're
going to see in the near future.

We can't even build the suckers to fly reliably under non-optimal
conditions yet, much less deal with threats while doing so.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[email protected]

February 26th 04, 12:01 AM

I'd think if there were more similarities than differences, there'd be a
majority of parts interchangable. Any idea just how few are
interchangable? I don't but I'd bet there are very, very few! You ever
looked at pics of these two helos?

George

February 26th 04, 12:25 AM

Mike Marron > wrote in message >...
> >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"?
>
> In the civilian arena, the V-22 is neither in the "Fixed Wing" -OR-
> the "Rotorcraft" category. The FAA has created an entirely brand new
> aircraft category for the V-22 called "Powered Lift" which is designed
> solely for tilt-rotor aircraft (see: FAR 61.163).

Also the AF would probably be happy if the Army bought V-22s. It
would probably help bring down the unit cost for the Air Force
Ospreys.

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 01:01 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a
> > > > new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not
> > unrealistic
> > > > (and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program),
> > destined
> > > > for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG
> > outfits
> > > > that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long.
> > >
> > > BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the
> > details of
> > > where the money's going.:
> > >
> > > http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040223-0484.html
> > >
> > > Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing
OH-58Cs?
> >
> > But if you reread the article you provided, you'll note the requirement
is
> > to replace the 58's *and* the Hueys. The 58C's are currently serving in
> > three major roles in the ARNG--as cav scouts in the divisional cav
> > squadrons, as observation aircraft (equipped with FLIR) in the RAID
> > detachments (drug interdiction and homeland security), and as
"caretaker"
> > airframes for the AH-1 inits and Huey units that have already lost their
> > aircraft. The 412 would not be ideal in the cav scout role, but that is
only
> > 16 aircraft per ARNG division (figuring an eventual force of no more
than
> > six ARNG divisions, you are talking about less than 100 aircraft, and
likely
> > less if the Guard drops down to the four division level). It would be an
> > excellent replacement for the Huey, especially in regards to the
homeland
> > defense mission. The article noted a total requirement of some 300
airframes
> > to replace the older Kiowas and the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I
would
> > not rule the 412 out as a competitor.
>
> From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
getting
> rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them with
UH-60s,
> and putting a new OH out for bid.

I did not come away with the same interpretation, and neither did the
following media source:

"Among the new buys will be 368 new reconnaissance helicopters to replace
the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior, 303 new light utility helicopters to replace aging
Hueys, and roughly 25 new fixed-wing cargo aircraft that would replace the
C-23 for intra-theater transport. The cancellation of Comanche **also**
[emphasis added] will allow for the purchase of an additional 80 UH-60 Black
Hawk helicopters and another 50 CH-47 Chinooks, according to Cody."
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/inc02254.xml

The plan appears to be to purchase new aircraft to replace both the OH's
*and* the Hueys (may not be the same aircraft, obviously), and the
additional Blackhawk order is not going to impinge upon those plans (note
the use of "also", as in "in addition to").

>
> > > Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or
> > something
> > > similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more
> > OH/AH-6s
> > > at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller
than a
> > Huey,
> > > but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less
maintenance-intensive.
> > If
> > > you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more
> > UH-60s and
> > > have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with
> > CH-47Fs,
> > > UAVs etc.)
> >
> > As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are
> > pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on
homeland
> > defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money
and
> > buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would
> > appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any
> > more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not
to,
> > integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought
only
> > UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency
plan
> > force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to
> > integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
> > early--who knows?
>
> At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that,

That is not what AvLeak is saying.

and want the Guard
> to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which means
> they've pretty much got to have the same equipment.

Not necessarily. That has BEEN the way they have thought for decades, but
9-11, and the resultant load upon the Guard in terms of mobilizations for
overseas deployment, coupled with the less-than-timely drawdown on the Huey
and Cobra fleets, got some folks (including Governors and likely now the
DHS) to talking about the desirability of having some aircraft primarily
oriented towards the domestic requirement. NGB has even begun talking about
the MV-22 as being a good match for some domestic requirements, especially
for such roles as transporting the NG's NBC response teams. The desire to
get an off-the-shelf utility bird specifically for the ARNG has also been
discussed previously, which is why the plan to actually do that is not that
surprising to me. And as the interest is towards a dedicated (or close to
that term) domestic support aircraft, the need for interoperability with
active component systems is not as important. If such interoperability was
such a key concern, why does the ARNG often find itself operating equipment
(from trucks to helicopters) that the active component no longer operates,
and sometimes won't even support?

While a 412 probably costs
> less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the
separate
> training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't make
sense
> economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and
modified
> AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z.

Well Guy, in this case it appears the Army disagrees with you. Eighty
UH-60's are a drop in the bucket compared to the needs in terms of replacing
the UH-1's that have been lost, and I have to tell you that I think AvLeak
is generally a rather reliable source, and they do indeed indicate that a
*new* light utility airframe is in the works (and the UH-60 is a bit on the
chunky side (both in terms of size and payload) to be called "light"). I
doubt the amount of training required to prepare those Huey wrench turners
for a platform like the 412 is any different from what is required to
prepare them for the UH-60, and unlike the AC side, those wrench turners
often spend their entire career in the same unit, so turnover won't be as
big an issue. Crew training is not likely to be a major issue, either--the
ARNG already manages C-23 training, just as the ANG is heavily involved in
pilot training for the F-16 and F-15. Doing an in-house qualification course
at either or both the eastern or western ARNG aviation training sites (AZ
and PA, IIRC) would be no biggie as they have run crew training programs for
years now on Cobras, Chinooks, and even Blackhawks and Apaches. The USMC
stayed with the Huey for a number of reasons, cost being among them (and
size likely being another); likewise, the ARNG lobbied a few years back to
go with the "Huey II" or similar modifications, but was unsuccessful.

>
> > I did find the bit about replacing the C-23's of interest. The way they
> > phrased that (wanting a more capable aircraft), I'd bet that the folks
at
> > LMCO and Alenia (IIRC that is the right firm) can expect a likely C-27J
> > order in the not-too-distant future. The Guard folks have been squeaking
> > about just that possibility for a year or two now already.
>
> Yeah, that was my reading too. They may compete it with the CN-295, but I
> figure the odds of that winning are right up there with Congress agreeing
to buy
> Airbus tankers. Of course, if the CN-295 were to have American engines
and
> avionics and be assembled here, it would be pretty similar to the C-27J as
far
> as American content goes. But it's nice to see the Army get back the
> intra-theater tactical lift they lost when the AF took the Caribous. It
> certainly makes far more sense that the Army operate these than the USAF.
Of
> course, with the exception of supporting A-10 (and potentially F-35B)
operations
> from FOB, the USAF has little or no need of the rough-field STOL
capability of
> the C-130 to support their own intra-theater missions --they're all
support for
> Army (or occasionally Marine) ops.

Yep. It looks like the initial number to be bought will be around 25--that
would be a heck of a shot in the arm for the Alenia side in particular and
the C-27 in general. The commonality it shares engine wise with the C-130J
won't hurt its chances, either.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 01:05 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > >Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a couple
> > >of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
> > >they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to targeting
> >
> > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
>
> You havent heard of IFF I take it

Not a reliable, discrete (not desirable to tell *everyone* "here I am!", is
it?), and *operational* one for ground units I haven't. Your nominee to fill
those requirements would be...?

Brooks

>
> Keith
>
>

Thomas Schoene

February 26th 04, 01:50 AM

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

February 26th 04, 02:14 AM

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

February 26th 04, 02:18 AM

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

February 26th 04, 02:44 AM

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/

Howard Berkowitz

February 26th 04, 02:46 AM

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a
> > > >couple
> > > >of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
> > > >they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to
> > > >targeting
> > >
> > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> >
> > You havent heard of IFF I take it
>
> Not a reliable, discrete (not desirable to tell *everyone* "here I am!",
> is
> it?), and *operational* one for ground units I haven't. Your nominee to
> fill
> those requirements would be...?
>

Do consider that IFF can be set up that it doesn't broadcast, but only
sends an encrypted, low-probability of interception response to an
encrypted query. That said, IFF, like any other electronic system, can
fail.

Thomas Schoene

February 26th 04, 03:02 AM

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

February 26th 04, 03:16 AM

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/

Tank Fixer

February 26th 04, 03:18 AM

In article >,
on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:04:05 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

> With 18 aircraft per divisional attack battalion
>

IIRC the divisional BN are going to 24 airframes.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Paul F Austin

February 26th 04, 03:30 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote
> > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> >
> > You havent heard of IFF I take it
>
> You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> spoofed and jammed quite easily?
>
> You have some of the following problems:
>
> IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
> IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
>
> IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.

BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it depends
on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam. Spoofing requires
breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to be done continuously
into multiple aperatures.

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 03:41 AM

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:04:05 -0500,
> Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....
>
> > With 18 aircraft per divisional attack battalion
> >
>
>
> IIRC the divisional BN are going to 24 airframes.

That is the new plan; wasn't aware of that until earlier today. ISTR the
current/old model was 18 per DIV ATK BN, and 21 per corps ATK BN. Of course,
IIRC the even *older* MTOE requirement for the DIV ATK BN was...24 aircraft.
So we went from 24 to 18 and back to 24...and somewhere in there the light
divisions and the 82nd ABN DIV lost their "real" attack helos altogether,
and picked up the AH-58 in their stead. Heck, one thing is for sure--you
can't accuse the aviators of being unwilling to change!

Brooks
>
> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 03:43 AM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby >
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a
> > > > >couple
> > > > >of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
> > > > >they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to
> > > > >targeting
> > > >
> > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> > >
> > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
> >
> > Not a reliable, discrete (not desirable to tell *everyone* "here I am!",
> > is
> > it?), and *operational* one for ground units I haven't. Your nominee to
> > fill
> > those requirements would be...?
> >
>
> Do consider that IFF can be set up that it doesn't broadcast, but only
> sends an encrypted, low-probability of interception response to an
> encrypted query. That said, IFF, like any other electronic system, can
> fail.

And how many such systems do we have on our *ground* platforms? And how
would say, and A-10 with no radar, query one?

Brooks

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 03:48 AM

"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/
>

Thomas Schoene

February 26th 04, 04:01 AM

John Hairell wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:46:01 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> > wrote:

>> 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.)
>>
>
> I'd argue with that - the CH-47A was originally the YCH-1B, which was
> a derivative of the YCH-1A, which was the Vertol 107 (militarized into
> the CH-46). I'd say there's more similarities than there are
> differences. You can see at a glance that the designs are related,
> and they both relate to their predecessor, the CH-21.

I'll grant there is a family resemblance (as one woudl expect from the same
company at about the same time), but they are *very* different in size and
lift capacity.

--
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)

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 04:03 AM

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote
> > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
> > > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> > >
> > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
> >
> > You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> > spoofed and jammed quite easily?
> >
> > You have some of the following problems:
> >
> > IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> > IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
> > IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
> >
> > IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.
>
> BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it
depends
> on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam. Spoofing requires
> breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to be done continuously
> into multiple aperatures.

Gee, how many times did we hear that, "Product X is going to revolutionize
the way you do process Y!", only to spend the next ten years doing process Y
the same way we always did because Product X never quite lived up to its
promises, or ran way over budget and got the axe, etc.? The Navy's A-12
Avenger, the Air Force's AMST, the Army's DIVADS, Grizzly, Wolverine, M180,
various digital command and control packages, the laughable attempt to field
those original big honking green monster boxes (TACS computers)... A good,
reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be wonderful, but I am not
holding my breath while waiting for it to be fielded. Till then I'll take
the manned shooters in the close fight.

Brooks

>
>

Thomas Schoene

February 26th 04, 04:09 AM

Guy Alcala wrote:
>> The article noted a total
>> requirement of some 300 airframes to replace the older Kiowas and
>> the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would not rule the 412 out
>> as a competitor.
>
> From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
> getting rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?),
> replacing them with UH-60s, and putting a new OH out for bid.

I read the transcript and slides pretty much the same way Kevin does:

1) 368 armed reconaissance helos (apparently manned).

2) 303 light utility helicopters to replace the Huey and OH-58 in the Guard
(apparently this is a Guard-only aircraft)

3) 80 more Blackhawks (on top of the 100 in the current POM), some for the
Guard, some to replace AC losses.

--
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)

Steve Hix

February 26th 04, 04:19 AM

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.

Tank Fixer

February 26th 04, 04:47 AM

In article et>,
on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:09:09 GMT,
Thomas Schoene attempted to say .....

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> >> The article noted a total
> >> requirement of some 300 airframes to replace the older Kiowas and
> >> the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would not rule the 412 out
> >> as a competitor.
> >
> > From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
> > getting rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?),
> > replacing them with UH-60s, and putting a new OH out for bid.
>
> I read the transcript and slides pretty much the same way Kevin does:
>
> 1) 368 armed reconaissance helos (apparently manned).
>
> 2) 303 light utility helicopters to replace the Huey and OH-58 in the Guard
> (apparently this is a Guard-only aircraft)

A significant problem now is that the Guard is using equipment, both
aircraft and radio's that are not standard with the active forces. So when
the Guard unit deploys they can't operate as effeciently as they might.

Our AA unit that deployed last year to Iraq and Afganistan had to un-
install and ship out radios (-106 radios, IIRC) after returning to CONUS.
Seems the radios are in short supply...

> 3) 80 more Blackhawks (on top of the 100 in the current POM), some for the
> Guard, some to replace AC losses.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Guy Alcala

February 26th 04, 05:03 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:

<snip>

> > From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
> getting
> > rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them with
> UH-60s,
> > and putting a new OH out for bid.
>
> I did not come away with the same interpretation, and neither did the
> following media source:
>
> "Among the new buys will be 368 new reconnaissance helicopters to replace
> the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior, 303 new light utility helicopters to replace aging
> Hueys, and roughly 25 new fixed-wing cargo aircraft that would replace the
> C-23 for intra-theater transport. The cancellation of Comanche **also**
> [emphasis added] will allow for the purchase of an additional 80 UH-60 Black
> Hawk helicopters and another 50 CH-47 Chinooks, according to Cody."
> http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/inc02254.xml
>
> The plan appears to be to purchase new aircraft to replace both the OH's
> *and* the Hueys (may not be the same aircraft, obviously), and the
> additional Blackhawk order is not going to impinge upon those plans (note
> the use of "also", as in "in addition to").

The tranxript and slides appear to be somewhat contradictory. One of the slides shows the
proposed TO&E for AC/RC Multi-function Aviation Brigades, NG Brigades, and brigades for the
Light divisions. The NG brigade lists the scout battalion as follows: 3 x 8 OH (LUH), which
to me implies that they're the same a/c. This is the a/c for which the 303 applies. At the
same time it lists 3 x 10 UH companies for the assault battalion, and the UH definitely seems
to be the UH-60, as it is in the AC/Reserve components, while the OH for the attack battalions
in the Light Divisions (the 368) appears to be the same a/c as that for the NG (but armed).
OTOH, it may not be. The AC/RC brigades don't show a scout battalion at all, the Block III
AH-64s apparently taking on this role. Maybe the slide is incorrect to make this distinction,
but then there's the following exchange in the transcript:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Cody: Okay. We have spent about $6.9 billion on Comanche, most of that in our RDT&E
account. We've had nine confirmed helicopters shot down with the loss of 32 lives. And
I'll refer
to Steve Blum or Ron Helmly on the Guard and Reserve questions. Steve?

Q: How many are short?

Blum: Well, it really depends. If we're going to look exactly like the Army, and we
move to
modularity, so that we have the exact same capability on the battlefield, whether we're an
Army
National Guard unit or an Army Reserve unit or an active Army unit --

Q: Could you move to the lectern?

Blum: Sure. As we move to modularity, which is exactly where we should go, so that
all
components of your United States Army have the exact same capabilities on the battlefield,
so that
they're interchangeable, plug-and-play parts, as we're using the Reserve component as an
operational Reserve today and in the foreseeable future, this is an essential move for us.

So you can see that the organizations now, while they today don't match, they're not
plug-and-play, they're not interoperable, and they're certainly not interchangeable, we
insisted --
and the Army has come up with an organization that makes us look exactly alike, we'll be
equipped exactly alike, and we'll be -- we will fight exactly like our active-duty
counterparts, as
soon as the same modules that you see here are resident in the Reserve component as they are
in
the active duty, and the same numbers apply.

So we will take the current fleet that we have, reapportion it against the new
modularity model,
and then this new initiative with Comanche will enable us to have modernized aircraft, new
aircraft,
relevant and ready aircraft for homeland defense and overseas.

Q: How much of an increase in aircraft numbers is that? How many more aircraft --

Blum: Well, we don't know until we apply what we have currently against this
modularity force
and then buy what we need and recapitalize what we have to --

Cody: It will not be a one-for-one of the 880 we're cascading out, because, as you
know, a
Black Hawk is much more capable than a UH-1.

Q: Right.

Cody: So if you're looking for a one-to-one, it won't be that way. I don't have the
absolute
numbers. I used to have them. We'll get that to you. But there is a sizable amount of new
acquisitions going to the National Guard.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The Guard Hueys are going away, no question, to be replaced by the new LUH, but per the slide
that will serve as the Guard's OH. But the 6 Guard brigades are getting at least 30 and maybe
38 Blackhawks each as well as the 24 OH (LUH). The new recon helos for the LDs are apparently
going to be a new design entirely.

A 412 seems much too big, noisy and lacking in maneuverability to make a good OH, and too close
to the UH-60 in capability to be worth buying as a utility helo, so what would be its job?

>
> > > As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are
> > > pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on
> homeland
> > > defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money
> and
> > > buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would
> > > appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any
> > > more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not
> to,
> > > integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought
> only
> > > UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency
> plan
> > > force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to
> > > integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
> > > early--who knows?
> >
> > At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that,
>
> That is not what AvLeak is saying.

I know, but that assumes they understand the briefing and slides any better than I do;-)

> and want the Guard
> > to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which means
> > they've pretty much got to have the same equipment.
>
> Not necessarily. That has BEEN the way they have thought for decades, but
> 9-11, and the resultant load upon the Guard in terms of mobilizations for
> overseas deployment, coupled with the less-than-timely drawdown on the Huey
> and Cobra fleets, got some folks (including Governors and likely now the
> DHS) to talking about the desirability of having some aircraft primarily
> oriented towards the domestic requirement.

See Blum's comments above.

> NGB has even begun talking about
> the MV-22 as being a good match for some domestic requirements, especially
> for such roles as transporting the NG's NBC response teams. The desire to
> get an off-the-shelf utility bird specifically for the ARNG has also been
> discussed previously, which is why the plan to actually do that is not that
> surprising to me. And as the interest is towards a dedicated (or close to
> that term) domestic support aircraft, the need for interoperability with
> active component systems is not as important. If such interoperability was
> such a key concern, why does the ARNG often find itself operating equipment
> (from trucks to helicopters) that the active component no longer operates,
> and sometimes won't even support?

Again, see Blum's comments. BTW, I'm having some problems with the numbers. They say they
want 303 LUHs for the Guard. The 6 Guard MF AV BDEs each show 24 OH (LUH), or 144 a/c.
That's 159 a/c for training, pipeline, and attrition. For the sake of argument, let's assume
that the 8 C2 a/c per BDE are also LUHs, i.e. 48 more for a total of 192. That's still 111 a/c
for T/P/A. Seems excessive given the loss rates nowadays. 1960s, sure.

> While a 412 probably costs
> > less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the
> separate
> > training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't make
> sense
> > economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and
> modified
> > AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z.
>
> Well Guy, in this case it appears the Army disagrees with you. Eighty
> UH-60's are a drop in the bucket compared to the needs in terms of replacing
> the UH-1's that have been lost, and I have to tell you that I think AvLeak
> is generally a rather reliable source, and they do indeed indicate that a
> *new* light utility airframe is in the works (and the UH-60 is a bit on the
> chunky side (both in terms of size and payload) to be called "light").

So's the Huey;-)

> I
> doubt the amount of training required to prepare those Huey wrench turners
> for a platform like the 412 is any different from what is required to
> prepare them for the UH-60, and unlike the AC side, those wrench turners
> often spend their entire career in the same unit, so turnover won't be as
> big an issue. Crew training is not likely to be a major issue, either--the
> ARNG already manages C-23 training, just as the ANG is heavily involved in
> pilot training for the F-16 and F-15. Doing an in-house qualification course
> at either or both the eastern or western ARNG aviation training sites (AZ
> and PA, IIRC) would be no biggie as they have run crew training programs for
> years now on Cobras, Chinooks, and even Blackhawks and Apaches.

<snip>

If the idea is to neck down the the minimum number of systems, why even put up with the hassle
of the extra pipeline?

Guy

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 05:03 AM

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article et>,
> on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:09:09 GMT,
> Thomas Schoene attempted to say .....
>
> > Guy Alcala wrote:
> > >> The article noted a total
> > >> requirement of some 300 airframes to replace the older Kiowas and
> > >> the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would not rule the 412 out
> > >> as a competitor.
> > >
> > > From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
> > > getting rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?),
> > > replacing them with UH-60s, and putting a new OH out for bid.
> >
> > I read the transcript and slides pretty much the same way Kevin does:
> >
> > 1) 368 armed reconaissance helos (apparently manned).
> >
> > 2) 303 light utility helicopters to replace the Huey and OH-58 in the
Guard
> > (apparently this is a Guard-only aircraft)
>
> A significant problem now is that the Guard is using equipment, both
> aircraft and radio's that are not standard with the active forces. So when
> the Guard unit deploys they can't operate as effeciently as they might.

But as I understand it the real driver behind the LUH program is the
domestic defense role, not deployed warfighting. Folks are starting to
realize that the Guard still has that significant role to play in the
homeland defense arena, and we can't strip it bare. My guess is that the
LUH's will be the primary homeland defense contribution of the ARNG aviation
fleet, while the Blackhawks, Chinooks, and Apaches, along with some of those
new armed scouts, will be its deployable force.

>
> Our AA unit that deployed last year to Iraq and Afganistan had to un-
> install and ship out radios (-106 radios, IIRC) after returning to CONUS.
> Seems the radios are in short supply...

From what I picked up in the transcripts, the savings from the Commanche
program will also be used to get the existing fleet up to standards.

Brooks

<snip>

Guy Alcala

February 26th 04, 05:05 AM

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

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 06:22 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
> > getting
> > > rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them
with
> > UH-60s,
> > > and putting a new OH out for bid.
> >
> > I did not come away with the same interpretation, and neither did the
> > following media source:
> >
> > "Among the new buys will be 368 new reconnaissance helicopters to
replace
> > the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior, 303 new light utility helicopters to replace
aging
> > Hueys, and roughly 25 new fixed-wing cargo aircraft that would replace
the
> > C-23 for intra-theater transport. The cancellation of Comanche **also**
> > [emphasis added] will allow for the purchase of an additional 80 UH-60
Black
> > Hawk helicopters and another 50 CH-47 Chinooks, according to Cody."
> >
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/inc02254.xml
> >
> > The plan appears to be to purchase new aircraft to replace both the OH's
> > *and* the Hueys (may not be the same aircraft, obviously), and the
> > additional Blackhawk order is not going to impinge upon those plans
(note
> > the use of "also", as in "in addition to").
>
> The tranxript and slides appear to be somewhat contradictory. One of the
slides shows the
> proposed TO&E for AC/RC Multi-function Aviation Brigades, NG Brigades, and
brigades for the
> Light divisions. The NG brigade lists the scout battalion as follows: 3
x 8 OH (LUH), which
> to me implies that they're the same a/c. This is the a/c for which the
303 applies. At the
> same time it lists 3 x 10 UH companies for the assault battalion, and the
UH definitely seems
> to be the UH-60, as it is in the AC/Reserve components, while the OH for
the attack battalions
> in the Light Divisions (the 368) appears to be the same a/c as that for
the NG (but armed).
> OTOH, it may not be. The AC/RC brigades don't show a scout battalion at
all, the Block III
> AH-64s apparently taking on this role. Maybe the slide is incorrect to
make this distinction,
> but then there's the following exchange in the transcript:

Look at the timeline slide--it shows the LUH and OH programs as being
separate and distinct. The slide you are referring to is confusing as all
get out--what the hell is "AER"? And where are the non-divisional units?
What about the DIV CAV SQDN; does it retain any helos? Whoever the guy was
who prepared this set of briefing slides needs to be divested of his
"PowerPoint Ranger" tab immediately!

<snip lots of gobbledygook from Blum, et al>

"Modularity model"??! I met Blum when he was a one-star--he walked into the
work area outside our (my SGM's and my own) offices, picked up a tootsie pop
off the table while we stood there, and walked back out--not a "May I" or a
"thank you" muttered. If he is going to spout this kind of doublespeak
claptrap, he needs to steal some more tootsie pops to keep his mouth
otherwise engaged. :)

>
> The Guard Hueys are going away, no question, to be replaced by the new
LUH, but per the slide
> that will serve as the Guard's OH.

Well, not so sure about that. That slide, and the way it does not
necessarily agree with the later slide, is kind of questionable in terms of
its detail. Then again, they were prepared to allow the briefing of a bunch
of media wonks, most of whom could not tell the difference between an AH-58D
and AH-1 if they tried.

But the 6 Guard brigades are getting at least 30 and maybe
> 38 Blackhawks each as well as the 24 OH (LUH). The new recon helos for
the LDs are apparently
> going to be a new design entirely.

That is not adding up either. I have not heard anything yet about drawing
the Guard division strength down that far (they are only showing two heavy
divs and (presumably) one light div in the ARNG). There are eight divisions
in the ARNG right now, and the plan was to redesignate two of them as CS/CSS
unit sources. That leaves six, of which one is a light division. See the
disconnect on the slide?

>
> A 412 seems much too big, noisy and lacking in maneuverability to make a
good OH, and too close
> to the UH-60 in capability to be worth buying as a utility helo, so what
would be its job?

Cheaper unit cost than the UH-60 plus cheaper operating cost, with a
somewhat reduced payload and range. The ARNG needs LUH's for the homeland
defense role, especially if/when their UH-60 elements are deployed
elsewhere. Disaster response, MEDEVAC, terrorist incident response, to
include mobility support for the NBC response teams springing up around the
country, customs/law enforcement support, firefighting support with bambi
buckets--a myriad of uses. Nothing says that the 412 can't serve the same
role as the current OH-58's do in the drug interdiction recon role, though a
ligheter and even less costly operating aircraft might be better in that
role. And again, if you look at that later slide, the apparent requirement
is for two different platforms--one LUH and one OH. I fully expect some of
the "UH" units on the ARNG side to be equipped with "LUH".

>
> >
> > > > As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks
are
> > > > pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on
> > homeland
> > > > defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of
money
> > and
> > > > buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money
would
> > > > appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow
any
> > > > more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer
not
> > to,
> > > > integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought
> > only
> > > > UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with
contingency
> > plan
> > > > force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want
to
> > > > integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
> > > > early--who knows?
> > >
> > > At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that,
> >
> > That is not what AvLeak is saying.
>
> I know, but that assumes they understand the briefing and slides any
better than I do;-)

I don't know how much credibility we can put in these slides, or for that
matter in some of the ridiculous verbage in the transcript--I can just see
junior/midgrade staff weenies lstening to their bosses in those confusing
exchanges cringing and saying to themselves, "No, you idiot! That is NOT
what that means!"

>
> > and want the Guard
> > > to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which
means
> > > they've pretty much got to have the same equipment.
> >
> > Not necessarily. That has BEEN the way they have thought for decades,
but
> > 9-11, and the resultant load upon the Guard in terms of mobilizations
for
> > overseas deployment, coupled with the less-than-timely drawdown on the
Huey
> > and Cobra fleets, got some folks (including Governors and likely now the
> > DHS) to talking about the desirability of having some aircraft primarily
> > oriented towards the domestic requirement.
>
> See Blum's comments above.

See the bullet comment about improving the homeland defense capabilities,
and see the recent comments from governors and congress critters concerned
over the gap in capabilities left when all of the high priority Guard units
are mobilized. See what the NGAUS has been harping about for a few years
now. And then remember that this presentation apprantly did NOT address the
entire Guard aviation force structure, for whatever reasons.

>
> > NGB has even begun talking about
> > the MV-22 as being a good match for some domestic requirements,
especially
> > for such roles as transporting the NG's NBC response teams. The desire
to
> > get an off-the-shelf utility bird specifically for the ARNG has also
been
> > discussed previously, which is why the plan to actually do that is not
that
> > surprising to me. And as the interest is towards a dedicated (or close
to
> > that term) domestic support aircraft, the need for interoperability with
> > active component systems is not as important. If such interoperability
was
> > such a key concern, why does the ARNG often find itself operating
equipment
> > (from trucks to helicopters) that the active component no longer
operates,
> > and sometimes won't even support?
>
> Again, see Blum's comments. BTW, I'm having some problems with the
numbers. They say they
> want 303 LUHs for the Guard. The 6 Guard MF AV BDEs each show 24 OH
(LUH), or 144 a/c.
> That's 159 a/c for training, pipeline, and attrition. For the sake of
argument, let's assume
> that the 8 C2 a/c per BDE are also LUHs, i.e. 48 more for a total of 192.
That's still 111 a/c
> for T/P/A. Seems excessive given the loss rates nowadays. 1960s, sure.

Like I said earlier, this slide show ain't complete. There is too big a hole
in it in regards to the Guard aviation force structure. Where are the ARNG
counter drug aviation assets that reside in each state? Where are the other
divisional brigades?

>
> > While a 412 probably costs
> > > less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the
> > separate
> > > training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't
make
> > sense
> > > economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and
> > modified
> > > AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z.
> >
> > Well Guy, in this case it appears the Army disagrees with you. Eighty
> > UH-60's are a drop in the bucket compared to the needs in terms of
replacing
> > the UH-1's that have been lost, and I have to tell you that I think
AvLeak
> > is generally a rather reliable source, and they do indeed indicate that
a
> > *new* light utility airframe is in the works (and the UH-60 is a bit on
the
> > chunky side (both in terms of size and payload) to be called "light").
>
> So's the Huey;-)

Watch it! Lightning has been known to strike those who speak ill of the old
washing machine with rotor attached! It had to have Divine approval, 'cause
it would never have flown without it.

>
> > I
> > doubt the amount of training required to prepare those Huey wrench
turners
> > for a platform like the 412 is any different from what is required to
> > prepare them for the UH-60, and unlike the AC side, those wrench turners
> > often spend their entire career in the same unit, so turnover won't be
as
> > big an issue. Crew training is not likely to be a major issue,
either--the
> > ARNG already manages C-23 training, just as the ANG is heavily involved
in
> > pilot training for the F-16 and F-15. Doing an in-house qualification
course
> > at either or both the eastern or western ARNG aviation training sites
(AZ
> > and PA, IIRC) would be no biggie as they have run crew training programs
for
> > years now on Cobras, Chinooks, and even Blackhawks and Apaches.
>
> <snip>
>
> If the idea is to neck down the the minimum number of systems, why even
put up with the hassle
> of the extra pipeline?

Guy, face it, even the slide show is kind of clear in that a new line of
utility helos is coming.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

John Keeney

February 26th 04, 07:43 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
can't
> > > > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> > > >
> > > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
> > >
> > > You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> > > spoofed and jammed quite easily?
> > >
> > > You have some of the following problems:
> > >
> > > IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> > > IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
> >
> > Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall
>
> But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
> incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
> you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
> that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
> battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
> issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.

For UCAV & CAS perhaps the solution is giving out laser
designators to the ground units and making that mark the *only*
target of interest to the UCAV.
Lot's of details of course: "code for the day" in the mark, reject
the mark if two or more examples can be seen in seperate areas, etc.

Keith Willshaw

February 26th 04, 07:48 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> > Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall
>
> But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
> incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
> you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
> that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
> battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
> issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.
>

There's no doubt in my mind we NEED IFF for ground forces
even with conventional manned platforms. We have seen far
too many blue on blue incidents in recent conflicts

> > > IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
> > >
> > > IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.
> >
> > As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action
>
> Still a couple of orders of magnitude better than any UCAV IFF we're
> going to see in the near future.
>
> We can't even build the suckers to fly reliably under non-optimal
> conditions yet, much less deal with threats while doing so.
>

I have no illusions that we will see UCAV's flying CAS in the
next decade but it is the way of the future with low level
aviation becoming increasingly hazardous as MANPAD's
and other weapons become increasingly common.

Keith

Chad Irby

February 26th 04, 09:23 AM

In article >,
"Paul F Austin" > wrote:

> BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it
> depends on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam.

Well, there's some nice claims about it, but it's still vulnerable to a
number of countermeasures. If you're rariating to tell someone that
you're who you are, you're also telling the bad guys "Hey! Come shoot
me!"

The same tech that makes a this useful for IFF makes it simpler to find
machines that radiate a lot.

> Spoofing requires breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to
> be done continuously into multiple aperatures.

With increases in machines that *live* off of information flow, jamming
will suddenly become a lot more popular.

And with all of that extra RF floating around out there, radar-homing
missiles will be *very* much in vogue.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

February 26th 04, 09:27 AM

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> A good, reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be
> wonderful, but I am not holding my breath while waiting for it to be
> fielded.

We're still waiting for a good, reliable portable communications system
that can be used across all services, can't be easily intercepted, and
doesn't use up batteries at an insane rate.

What are the odds that we'll get good IFF or smart UCAVs before we get
radios that work even as well as a typical cell phone?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Paul F Austin

February 26th 04, 10:07 AM

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
>
> "Paul F Austin" wrote
> >
> > "Chad Irby" wrote
> > > "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Rune Børsjø" wrote
> > > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
> > > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
can't
> > > > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> > > >
> > > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
> > >
> > > You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> > > spoofed and jammed quite easily?
> > >
> > > You have some of the following problems:
> > >
> > > IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> > > IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
> > > IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
> > >
> > > IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.
> >
> > BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it
> depends
> > on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam. Spoofing
requires
> > breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to be done continuously
> > into multiple aperatures.
>
> Gee, how many times did we hear that, "Product X is going to revolutionize
> the way you do process Y!", only to spend the next ten years doing process
Y
> the same way we always did because Product X never quite lived up to its
> promises, or ran way over budget and got the axe, etc.? The Navy's A-12
> Avenger, the Air Force's AMST, the Army's DIVADS, Grizzly, Wolverine,
M180,
> various digital command and control packages, the laughable attempt to
field
> those original big honking green monster boxes (TACS computers)... A good,
> reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be wonderful, but I am
not
> holding my breath while waiting for it to be fielded. Till then I'll take
> the manned shooters in the close fight.

That hits close to home. But equally, other much maligned systems performed
exactly as advertised: Abrams, Bradley, APSJ and (oh yes) Apache. Remember
how all of those systems were 'way too complex for ham-handed GIs to operate
and maintain and they were all overpriced gas-guzzlers...

GPS performed beyond the planners wildest expectations as have the C-17s
(son o' AMST).

BFT worked well enough in Iraq-2 to get everybody's britches tight.
Currently, it requires a CINCGARS radio, making it tough to migrate down to
every troop. According to AvWeek, "RFID tag technology" is intended to make
BFT as ubiquitous as GPS is now. I have trouble picturing that since the
signal levels from such an approach will necessarily by_very_low, making
jamming much easier. We'll see, it isn't here yet.

Matt Wiser

February 26th 04, 02:36 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
>"Paul F Austin" > wrote
>in message
. ..
>>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote
>> > "Keith Willshaw" >
>wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote
>> > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly
>from enemy? Civilian from
>> > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good
>for is knocking out armor.
>> > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility
>and presence that you can't
>> > > > get out of a glorified model airplane
>kit.
>> > >
>> > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
>> >
>> > You mean like the IFF that fails from time
>to time, or that can be
>> > spoofed and jammed quite easily?
>> >
>> > You have some of the following problems:
>> >
>> > IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
>> > IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in
>front of it.
>> > IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
>> >
>> > IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is
>a real pain.
>>
>> BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize
>IFF. Because it
>depends
>> on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to
>spoof or jam. Spoofing requires
>> breaking encryption in real-time and jamming
>has to be done continuously
>> into multiple aperatures.
>
>Gee, how many times did we hear that, "Product
>X is going to revolutionize
>the way you do process Y!", only to spend the
>next ten years doing process Y
>the same way we always did because Product X
>never quite lived up to its
>promises, or ran way over budget and got the
>axe, etc.? The Navy's A-12
>Avenger, the Air Force's AMST, the Army's DIVADS,
>Grizzly, Wolverine, M180,
>various digital command and control packages,
>the laughable attempt to field
>those original big honking green monster boxes
>(TACS computers)... A good,
>reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units
>will be wonderful, but I am not
>holding my breath while waiting for it to be
>fielded. Till then I'll take
>the manned shooters in the close fight.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>
>
One other thing:whenever someone comes up with technology that "will make
manned aircraft obsolete", something happens that keeps the guys and gals
in the cockpits. You will NEVER take people out of the cockpit. Oh, there
will be UCAVs for really dangerous missions, or as expendable wild weasels,
but I'll bet that manned aircraft are going to be around a LONG time.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Paul F Austin

February 26th 04, 02:42 PM

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> > In article >,
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Rune Børsjø" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out
armor.
> > > > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
> can't
> > > > > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> > > > >
> > > > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
> > > >
> > > > You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> > > > spoofed and jammed quite easily?
> > > >
> > > > You have some of the following problems:
> > > >
> > > > IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> > > > IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
> > >
> > > Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall
> >
> > But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
> > incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
> > you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
> > that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
> > battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
> > issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.
>
> For UCAV & CAS perhaps the solution is giving out laser
> designators to the ground units and making that mark the *only*
> target of interest to the UCAV.
> Lot's of details of course: "code for the day" in the mark, reject
> the mark if two or more examples can be seen in seperate areas, etc.

The trouble is that for LASER designators, the Murphy's Law that says
"tracers work both ways" is true in spades.

Paul F Austin

February 26th 04, 02:45 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > A good, reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be
> > wonderful, but I am not holding my breath while waiting for it to be
> > fielded.
>
> We're still waiting for a good, reliable portable communications system
> that can be used across all services, can't be easily intercepted, and
> doesn't use up batteries at an insane rate.
>
> What are the odds that we'll get good IFF or smart UCAVs before we get
> radios that work even as well as a typical cell phone?

DARPA has been working on the battery problem. They're developing a small
diesel generator which is the same size as a SINCGARS battery pack
(including the fuel tank). The tank can be topped up with diesel at any time
and the assembly has about 4X the endurance of the battery it replaces. The
DG proper is a 1 inch cube.

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 06:17 PM

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Kevin Brooks" wrote
> >
> > "Paul F Austin" wrote
> > >
> > > "Chad Irby" wrote
> > > > "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Rune Børsjø" wrote
> > > > > > How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
> > > > > > combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out
armor.
> > > > > > Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you
> can't
> > > > > > get out of a glorified model airplane kit.
> > > > >
> > > > > You havent heard of IFF I take it
> > > >
> > > > You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
> > > > spoofed and jammed quite easily?
> > > >
> > > > You have some of the following problems:
> > > >
> > > > IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
> > > > IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
> > > > IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.
> > > >
> > > > IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.
> > >
> > > BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it
> > depends
> > > on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam. Spoofing
> requires
> > > breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to be done
continuously
> > > into multiple aperatures.
> >
> > Gee, how many times did we hear that, "Product X is going to
revolutionize
> > the way you do process Y!", only to spend the next ten years doing
process
> Y
> > the same way we always did because Product X never quite lived up to its
> > promises, or ran way over budget and got the axe, etc.? The Navy's A-12
> > Avenger, the Air Force's AMST, the Army's DIVADS, Grizzly, Wolverine,
> M180,
> > various digital command and control packages, the laughable attempt to
> field
> > those original big honking green monster boxes (TACS computers)... A
good,
> > reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be wonderful, but I am
> not
> > holding my breath while waiting for it to be fielded. Till then I'll
take
> > the manned shooters in the close fight.
>
> That hits close to home. But equally, other much maligned systems
performed
> exactly as advertised: Abrams, Bradley, APSJ and (oh yes) Apache. Remember
> how all of those systems were 'way too complex for ham-handed GIs to
operate
> and maintain and they were all overpriced gas-guzzlers...

You are misunderstanding my intent a bit, no doubt because I provided less
than stellar examples in some cases. My beef is more with the more minor
"transformational" packages; some years back we were promised a workable
engineer module to the Army's battle command and control system which was
going to make us oh-so-much-more effective. It languished; the maneuver
control system itself was a pain in the butt, and not well liked at all. The
saving grace for the engineer side of the house was a couple of pretty sharp
captains assigned to the 3rd ID engineer brigade, who took it on themselves
to develop a more workable, and available, HTML based system (SapperNet)
that quickly became rather popular throughout a lot of the engineer
community, nad became the basis for the 3rd ID's own "MarNet". Of course the
MCS weenies who visited us and saw how we used it during a V Corps
Warfighter feigned being impressed and I was told that they were planning to
use it as the basis for a reworked MCS-E system. I don't know if it has ever
gone beyond that point.

>
> GPS performed beyond the planners wildest expectations as have the C-17s
> (son o' AMST).

GPS has been great (though the PLGRS was overly heavy and complex compared
to civilian GPS receivers then available). But how easy has it been to
decide on a common mapping system for use in the command and contol systems?
Not very, last I knew (a 20th EN BDE conference I attended got all balled up
on that issue, with about three different systems being proposed).
Meanwhile, the Aussies bought a civilian GIS package and had it adapted to
meet their requirements for battlespace visualization. Where are US Army
forces now in that regard? How many have any real capability to transfer
digital mapping or at least layer info for resident base mapping? The
promise has been greater than the reward to date, by far.

>
> BFT worked well enough in Iraq-2 to get everybody's britches tight.
> Currently, it requires a CINCGARS radio,

That's "SINCGARS", IIRC (Single Channel Ground Air Radio System). :)

making it tough to migrate down to
> every troop. According to AvWeek, "RFID tag technology" is intended to
make
> BFT as ubiquitous as GPS is now. I have trouble picturing that since the
> signal levels from such an approach will necessarily by_very_low, making
> jamming much easier. We'll see, it isn't here yet.

I presume BFT is the elementry locating system that ties into the CAS
platforms (those so configured) and gives them a rather crude sketch of the
locations of friendly units? If so, that requires the later block SINGARS,
with PLGRS input, and it is from what I understand a very basic capability
as yet. We are not at the point of having a decent IFF package for ground
systems; we may get there, but who knows when? As a 2LT at EOBC, we were
taught to use the M9 ACE wrok estimate tables, because we were told, "That
is going to be the system you will be using." Three years later I left the
active duty side of the house without ever having laid eyes on one.

Brooks

>
>

John Hairell

February 26th 04, 06:22 PM

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:01:08 -0600 (CST), wrote:

>I'd think if there were more similarities than differences, there'd be a
>majority of parts interchangable. Any idea just how few are
>interchangable? I don't but I'd bet there are very, very few!

I don't mean similar at the rivet level, with interchangeable parts -
I mean similar in design philosophy, with the later design being to
some degree a derivative of the previous design, just as the F-106 was
related to the F-102. To me there are significant design
similarities between the CH-21, CH-46, and CH-47.

>You ever looked at pics of these two helos?

I've spent quite a bit of time in CH-47s, and have also flown in a
'46.

John Hairell )

Kevin Brooks

February 26th 04, 07:32 PM

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >
> > > A good, reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be
> > > wonderful, but I am not holding my breath while waiting for it to be
> > > fielded.
> >
> > We're still waiting for a good, reliable portable communications system
> > that can be used across all services, can't be easily intercepted, and
> > doesn't use up batteries at an insane rate.
> >
> > What are the odds that we'll get good IFF or smart UCAVs before we get
> > radios that work even as well as a typical cell phone?
>
> DARPA has been working on the battery problem. They're developing a small
> diesel generator which is the same size as a SINCGARS battery pack
> (including the fuel tank). The tank can be topped up with diesel at any
time
> and the assembly has about 4X the endurance of the battery it replaces.
The
> DG proper is a 1 inch cube.

Now *that* would be really nice to have along on your dismounted
patrol..."Sir, I hear a truck!" "Nah, that's just Schmedlap humping the
diesel-gernerator driven radio..." Gotta wnder if it'll have a miniature
turbo so you can get that classic whine... ;-) I believe they are more
interested in the quieter fuel cell technology and lighter, more efficient
battery designs at present, but from what I have read they have nothing that
will be fieldable in the foreseeable future.

Brooks

>
>

Tank Fixer

February 27th 04, 03:20 AM

In article >,
on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:03:42 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article et>,
> > on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:09:09 GMT,
> > Thomas Schoene attempted to say .....
> >
> > > Guy Alcala wrote:
> > > >> The article noted a total
> > > >> requirement of some 300 airframes to replace the older Kiowas and
> > > >> the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would not rule the 412 out
> > > >> as a competitor.
> > > >
> > > > From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
> > > > getting rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?),
> > > > replacing them with UH-60s, and putting a new OH out for bid.
> > >
> > > I read the transcript and slides pretty much the same way Kevin does:
> > >
> > > 1) 368 armed reconaissance helos (apparently manned).
> > >
> > > 2) 303 light utility helicopters to replace the Huey and OH-58 in the
> Guard
> > > (apparently this is a Guard-only aircraft)
> >
> > A significant problem now is that the Guard is using equipment, both
> > aircraft and radio's that are not standard with the active forces. So when
> > the Guard unit deploys they can't operate as effeciently as they might.
>
> But as I understand it the real driver behind the LUH program is the
> domestic defense role, not deployed warfighting. Folks are starting to
> realize that the Guard still has that significant role to play in the
> homeland defense arena, and we can't strip it bare. My guess is that the
> LUH's will be the primary homeland defense contribution of the ARNG aviation
> fleet, while the Blackhawks, Chinooks, and Apaches, along with some of those
> new armed scouts, will be its deployable force.

Other than the CST teams no units are built with MTOE's specifically for
Homeland defense. They all still have a deployable mission.

> > Our AA unit that deployed last year to Iraq and Afganistan had to un-
> > install and ship out radios (-106 radios, IIRC) after returning to CONUS.
> > Seems the radios are in short supply...
>
> From what I picked up in the transcripts, the savings from the Commanche
> program will also be used to get the existing fleet up to standards.

I hope so, there are still many equipment shortages in the aviation and
ground communitites that prevent units from being fully deployable.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer

February 27th 04, 03:37 AM

In article >,
on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:17:29 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

>
> GPS has been great (though the PLGRS was overly heavy and complex compared
> to civilian GPS receivers then available). But how easy has it been to
> decide on a common mapping system for use in the command and contol systems?
> Not very, last I knew (a 20th EN BDE conference I attended got all balled up
> on that issue, with about three different systems being proposed).
> Meanwhile, the Aussies bought a civilian GIS package and had it adapted to
> meet their requirements for battlespace visualization. Where are US Army
> forces now in that regard? How many have any real capability to transfer
> digital mapping or at least layer info for resident base mapping? The
> promise has been greater than the reward to date, by far.

Falconview Mission planning software.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Kevin Brooks

February 27th 04, 04:54 AM

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:03:42 -0500,
> Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article et>,
> > > on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:09:09 GMT,
> > > Thomas Schoene attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > Guy Alcala wrote:
> > > > >> The article noted a total
> > > > >> requirement of some 300 airframes to replace the older Kiowas and
> > > > >> the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would not rule the 412 out
> > > > >> as a competitor.
> > > > >
> > > > > From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that
they're
> > > > > getting rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?),
> > > > > replacing them with UH-60s, and putting a new OH out for bid.
> > > >
> > > > I read the transcript and slides pretty much the same way Kevin
does:
> > > >
> > > > 1) 368 armed reconaissance helos (apparently manned).
> > > >
> > > > 2) 303 light utility helicopters to replace the Huey and OH-58 in
the
> > Guard
> > > > (apparently this is a Guard-only aircraft)
> > >
> > > A significant problem now is that the Guard is using equipment, both
> > > aircraft and radio's that are not standard with the active forces. So
when
> > > the Guard unit deploys they can't operate as effeciently as they
might.
> >
> > But as I understand it the real driver behind the LUH program is the
> > domestic defense role, not deployed warfighting. Folks are starting to
> > realize that the Guard still has that significant role to play in the
> > homeland defense arena, and we can't strip it bare. My guess is that the
> > LUH's will be the primary homeland defense contribution of the ARNG
aviation
> > fleet, while the Blackhawks, Chinooks, and Apaches, along with some of
those
> > new armed scouts, will be its deployable force.
>
> Other than the CST teams no units are built with MTOE's specifically for
> Homeland defense. They all still have a deployable mission.

That they do, but some are more deployable than others. Those assault units
that have been flying Hueys to the bitter end were not going to be deployed
into any combat zones. The Governors, and IIRC some Guard leaders, have
begun raising the issue of having some homeland defense assets remain with
the states. Don't be surprised if you see some units considered as
essentially non-deployable for warfighting purposes. It won't be a new
concept--recall that it was only a few short years ago that we had major
Guard units which were not identified in the TPFDL for *any* of the various
contingencies (at one poin this included *all* of the combat divisions, save
the 29th LID which had been given a "defend Iceland" role under the European
war contingency plan.

>
>
>
> > > Our AA unit that deployed last year to Iraq and Afganistan had to un-
> > > install and ship out radios (-106 radios, IIRC) after returning to
CONUS.
> > > Seems the radios are in short supply...
> >
> > From what I picked up in the transcripts, the savings from the Commanche
> > program will also be used to get the existing fleet up to standards.
>
> I hope so, there are still many equipment shortages in the aviation and
> ground communitites that prevent units from being fully deployable.

No doubt. I trust that by now the last of the M51 series five tons are gone;
I can recall when we had engineer units with half of their primary vehicles
being of that type, and it was declared unsupportable by the Army. Instant
can point destination for deadlines that you could not repair by hitting up
those already in the can point. Try telling a troop how important
maintenance is when he is driving a vehicle already considered beyond
supporting...

Brooks

Kevin Brooks

February 27th 04, 04:58 AM

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:17:29 -0500,
> Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > GPS has been great (though the PLGRS was overly heavy and complex
compared
> > to civilian GPS receivers then available). But how easy has it been to
> > decide on a common mapping system for use in the command and contol
systems?
> > Not very, last I knew (a 20th EN BDE conference I attended got all
balled up
> > on that issue, with about three different systems being proposed).
> > Meanwhile, the Aussies bought a civilian GIS package and had it adapted
to
> > meet their requirements for battlespace visualization. Where are US Army
> > forces now in that regard? How many have any real capability to transfer
> > digital mapping or at least layer info for resident base mapping? The
> > promise has been greater than the reward to date, by far.
>
> Falconview Mission planning software.

Falconview was one of those discussed--some units were using it (ISTR it was
particularly favored by aviators, though I know other units were using it as
well). Others, like the terrain guys with the 20th EN BDE, were using
ArcView GIS (or the parent ArcInfo, can't recall which), while some more
were trying to make do with that rather nasty first generation Terrabase.
Have they ever standardized on a single package?

Brooks

>
>
> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer

February 27th 04, 07:34 AM

In article >,
on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:58:52 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:17:29 -0500,
> > Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....
> >
> > >
> > > GPS has been great (though the PLGRS was overly heavy and complex
> compared
> > > to civilian GPS receivers then available). But how easy has it been to
> > > decide on a common mapping system for use in the command and contol
> systems?
> > > Not very, last I knew (a 20th EN BDE conference I attended got all
> balled up
> > > on that issue, with about three different systems being proposed).
> > > Meanwhile, the Aussies bought a civilian GIS package and had it adapted
> to
> > > meet their requirements for battlespace visualization. Where are US Army
> > > forces now in that regard? How many have any real capability to transfer
> > > digital mapping or at least layer info for resident base mapping? The
> > > promise has been greater than the reward to date, by far.
> >
> > Falconview Mission planning software.
>
> Falconview was one of those discussed--some units were using it (ISTR it was
> particularly favored by aviators, though I know other units were using it as
> well). Others, like the terrain guys with the 20th EN BDE, were using
> ArcView GIS (or the parent ArcInfo, can't recall which), while some more
> were trying to make do with that rather nasty first generation Terrabase.
> Have they ever standardized on a single package?

From many of the AAR's I've seen Falconview is one of the preferd ones.
It got me interested enough to aquire a copy and begin to learn it.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Guy Alcala

February 28th 04, 07:09 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message

<snip>

> > > The plan appears to be to purchase new aircraft to replace both the OH's
> > > *and* the Hueys (may not be the same aircraft, obviously), and the
> > > additional Blackhawk order is not going to impinge upon those plans
> (note
> > > the use of "also", as in "in addition to").
> >
> > The tranxript and slides appear to be somewhat contradictory. One of the
> slides shows the
> > proposed TO&E for AC/RC Multi-function Aviation Brigades, NG Brigades, and
> brigades for the
> > Light divisions. The NG brigade lists the scout battalion as follows: 3
> x 8 OH (LUH), which
> > to me implies that they're the same a/c. This is the a/c for which the
> 303 applies. At the
> > same time it lists 3 x 10 UH companies for the assault battalion, and the
> UH definitely seems
> > to be the UH-60, as it is in the AC/Reserve components, while the OH for
> the attack battalions
> > in the Light Divisions (the 368) appears to be the same a/c as that for
> the NG (but armed).
> > OTOH, it may not be. The AC/RC brigades don't show a scout battalion at
> all, the Block III
> > AH-64s apparently taking on this role. Maybe the slide is incorrect to
> make this distinction,
> > but then there's the following exchange in the transcript:
>
> Look at the timeline slide--it shows the LUH and OH programs as being
> separate and distinct.

Yes, it does, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're different airframes (although I think
they probably will be, if they really want a Huey-sized LUH).

> The slide you are referring to is confusing as all
> get out--what the hell is "AER"? And where are the non-divisional units?
> What about the DIV CAV SQDN; does it retain any helos? Whoever the guy was
> who prepared this set of briefing slides needs to be divested of his
> "PowerPoint Ranger" tab immediately!

I'll go along with that;-)

<snip>

> > The Guard Hueys are going away, no question, to be replaced by the new
> LUH, but per the slide
> > that will serve as the Guard's OH.
>
> Well, not so sure about that. That slide, and the way it does not
> necessarily agree with the later slide, is kind of questionable in terms of
> its detail.

I agree, but the "Divest" following the Huey (and also the OH-58) on the later slide seems
pretty definite.

<snip>

> But the 6 Guard brigades are getting at least 30 and maybe
> > 38 Blackhawks each as well as the 24 OH (LUH). The new recon helos for
> the LDs are apparently
> > going to be a new design entirely.
>
> That is not adding up either. I have not heard anything yet about drawing
> the Guard division strength down that far (they are only showing two heavy
> divs and (presumably) one light div in the ARNG). There are eight divisions
> in the ARNG right now, and the plan was to redesignate two of them as CS/CSS
> unit sources. That leaves six, of which one is a light division. See the
> disconnect on the slide?

Oh, there are lots of those. I only count 9 AC divs, so what happened to the other? I assume
that the 82nd is one of the LDs, the 25th another, so who's the third? Would that be the 10th
Mountain, the 2nd or? Presumably not the 101st, as they have AH-64s. And the other thing I
find curious is the change from assault helo battalions (UH-60s) of 2 companies of 15 a/c, to 3
of 10. The reasoning behind the 15 a/c company was that assuming 80% serviceability (12 a/c),
an assault helo company would have enough seats (@11 ea.) to move a complete infantry company
in one wave. With the new organization and assuming the same 80% serviceable rate, they're
going to have to use 1.5 companies for the same lift, which seems unnecessarily complex. I
haven't heard of any major changes in the Infantry Co. TO&E (it would have to get considerably
smaller), so I'm puzzled by the rationale.

> > A 412 seems much too big, noisy and lacking in maneuverability to make a
> good OH, and too close
> > to the UH-60 in capability to be worth buying as a utility helo, so what
> would be its job?
>
> Cheaper unit cost than the UH-60 plus cheaper operating cost, with a
> somewhat reduced payload and range. The ARNG needs LUH's for the homeland
> defense role, especially if/when their UH-60 elements are deployed
> elsewhere. Disaster response, MEDEVAC, terrorist incident response, to
> include mobility support for the NBC response teams springing up around the
> country, customs/law enforcement support, firefighting support with bambi
> buckets--a myriad of uses. Nothing says that the 412 can't serve the same
> role as the current OH-58's do in the drug interdiction recon role, though a
> ligheter and even less costly operating aircraft might be better in that
> role. And again, if you look at that later slide, the apparent requirement
> is for two different platforms--one LUH and one OH. I fully expect some of
> the "UH" units on the ARNG side to be equipped with "LUH".

I've got to wonder how much an AB-139 would go for. It's probably more expensive than a 412 up
front, but a lot newer design and presumably far better at O&M, even given updates to the 412.
But I consider it a bit ridiculous to call any helo that weighs over 10,000 lb. + gross,
"light". Bell used to draw the "light" line at 6,500 lb., up to 10,000 lb. was intermediate,
up to 15,000 lb. (IIRR) was medium, and anything over that was heavy.

<snip>

> I doubt the Army wants to blow
> any
> > > > > more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer
> not
> > > to,
> > > > > integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought
> > > only
> > > > > UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with
> contingency
> > > plan
> > > > > force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want
> to
> > > > > integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
> > > > > early--who knows?
> > > >
> > > > At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that,
> > >
> > > That is not what AvLeak is saying.
> >
> > I know, but that assumes they understand the briefing and slides any
> better than I do;-)
>
> I don't know how much credibility we can put in these slides, or for that
> matter in some of the ridiculous verbage in the transcript--I can just see
> junior/midgrade staff weenies lstening to their bosses in those confusing
> exchanges cringing and saying to themselves, "No, you idiot! That is NOT
> what that means!"

LOL. Yes, I could definitely see that, having listened to Generals (retired and serving) blow
the details that any bright kid could straighten them out on. I often wonder why the TV
networks don't put some 12-year-old modeler on staff during wars, just to correct the errors
made by the 'expert' commentators. To be fair, though, such details are generally pretty far
below their paygrade -- after all, that's why they _Have_ staffs, to deal with the nuts and
bolts.

<snip>

> > > I
> > > doubt the amount of training required to prepare those Huey wrench
> turners
> > > for a platform like the 412 is any different from what is required to
> > > prepare them for the UH-60, and unlike the AC side, those wrench turners
> > > often spend their entire career in the same unit, so turnover won't be
> as
> > > big an issue. Crew training is not likely to be a major issue,
> either--the
> > > ARNG already manages C-23 training, just as the ANG is heavily involved
> in
> > > pilot training for the F-16 and F-15. Doing an in-house qualification
> course
> > > at either or both the eastern or western ARNG aviation training sites
> (AZ
> > > and PA, IIRC) would be no biggie as they have run crew training programs
> for
> > > years now on Cobras, Chinooks, and even Blackhawks and Apaches.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > If the idea is to neck down the the minimum number of systems, why even
> put up with the hassle
> > of the extra pipeline?
>
> Guy, face it, even the slide show is kind of clear in that a new line of
> utility helos is coming.

I agree, the question in my mind is are they going to be "light" enough to also be reasonable
OH a/c, or are they really going to be two separate airframes. We'll just have to see what the
LUH RFP asks for in terms of weight and capacity.

Guy

Guy Alcala

February 28th 04, 07:26 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Paul F Austin" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A good, reliable, and discrete IFF for ground units will be
> > > > wonderful, but I am not holding my breath while waiting for it to be
> > > > fielded.
> > >
> > > We're still waiting for a good, reliable portable communications system
> > > that can be used across all services, can't be easily intercepted, and
> > > doesn't use up batteries at an insane rate.
> > >
> > > What are the odds that we'll get good IFF or smart UCAVs before we get
> > > radios that work even as well as a typical cell phone?
> >
> > DARPA has been working on the battery problem. They're developing a small
> > diesel generator which is the same size as a SINCGARS battery pack
> > (including the fuel tank). The tank can be topped up with diesel at any
> time
> > and the assembly has about 4X the endurance of the battery it replaces.
> The
> > DG proper is a 1 inch cube.
>
> Now *that* would be really nice to have along on your dismounted
> patrol..."Sir, I hear a truck!" "Nah, that's just Schmedlap humping the
> diesel-gernerator driven radio..." Gotta wnder if it'll have a miniature
> turbo so you can get that classic whine... ;-) I believe they are more
> interested in the quieter fuel cell technology and lighter, more efficient
> battery designs at present, but from what I have read they have nothing that
> will be fieldable in the foreseeable future.

The other thing they were thinking about was just making battery recharging far
easier, at least with recon vehicles. They were working on a diesel-electric
hybrid for the latter, with provisions for recharging protable equipment battery
packs built in. And then there's portable, flexible/foldable PV panels, not
ideal but works with reasonable sun, and is better than nothing if you've just
got to recharge batteries in back of beyond (or operate PV direct). BTW, is
there any reason they can't use the old hand-cranked dynamo method, for when you
really need to communicate? You can buy civilian receive-only radios with them,
and the dynamos are internal and pretty small. I realize the power
requirements for transmit are much higher, but that's why they include a battery
as well. Not something for a handheld radio, but a backpack set would seem to
have enough room.

Guy

Kevin Brooks

February 28th 04, 07:47 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
<snip>

>
> > > The Guard Hueys are going away, no question, to be replaced by the new
> > LUH, but per the slide
> > > that will serve as the Guard's OH.
> >
> > Well, not so sure about that. That slide, and the way it does not
> > necessarily agree with the later slide, is kind of questionable in terms
of
> > its detail.
>
> I agree, but the "Divest" following the Huey (and also the OH-58) on the
later slide seems
> pretty definite.

I fully agree that they are getting rid of both.

>
> <snip>
>
> > But the 6 Guard brigades are getting at least 30 and maybe
> > > 38 Blackhawks each as well as the 24 OH (LUH). The new recon helos
for
> > the LDs are apparently
> > > going to be a new design entirely.
> >
> > That is not adding up either. I have not heard anything yet about
drawing
> > the Guard division strength down that far (they are only showing two
heavy
> > divs and (presumably) one light div in the ARNG). There are eight
divisions
> > in the ARNG right now, and the plan was to redesignate two of them as
CS/CSS
> > unit sources. That leaves six, of which one is a light division. See the
> > disconnect on the slide?
>
> Oh, there are lots of those. I only count 9 AC divs, so what happened to
the other? I assume
> that the 82nd is one of the LDs, the 25th another, so who's the third?
Would that be the 10th
> Mountain, the 2nd or? Presumably not the 101st, as they have AH-64s.

No, the 101st is not addressed, being a ******* TOE of sorts. The three
light divisions are 82-10-25. 2ID is another strange one, but it is treated
as a heavy division in most ways (i.e., has an engineer brigade at present).

And the other thing I
> find curious is the change from assault helo battalions (UH-60s) of 2
companies of 15 a/c, to 3
> of 10. The reasoning behind the 15 a/c company was that assuming 80%
serviceability (12 a/c),
> an assault helo company would have enough seats (@11 ea.) to move a
complete infantry company
> in one wave. With the new organization and assuming the same 80%
serviceable rate, they're
> going to have to use 1.5 companies for the same lift, which seems
unnecessarily complex. I
> haven't heard of any major changes in the Infantry Co. TO&E (it would have
to get considerably
> smaller), so I'm puzzled by the rationale.

Who knows? The whole aviation reorganization initiative that started a
couple of years back has had its share of strange features. Going from 24
aircraft in a DIV ATK BN to 18, and now back to 24, etc.

> > > A 412 seems much too big, noisy and lacking in maneuverability to make
a
> > good OH, and too close
> > > to the UH-60 in capability to be worth buying as a utility helo, so
what
> > would be its job?
> >
> > Cheaper unit cost than the UH-60 plus cheaper operating cost, with a
> > somewhat reduced payload and range. The ARNG needs LUH's for the
homeland
> > defense role, especially if/when their UH-60 elements are deployed
> > elsewhere. Disaster response, MEDEVAC, terrorist incident response, to
> > include mobility support for the NBC response teams springing up around
the
> > country, customs/law enforcement support, firefighting support with
bambi
> > buckets--a myriad of uses. Nothing says that the 412 can't serve the
same
> > role as the current OH-58's do in the drug interdiction recon role,
though a
> > ligheter and even less costly operating aircraft might be better in that
> > role. And again, if you look at that later slide, the apparent
requirement
> > is for two different platforms--one LUH and one OH. I fully expect some
of
> > the "UH" units on the ARNG side to be equipped with "LUH".
>
> I've got to wonder how much an AB-139 would go for. It's probably more
expensive than a 412 up
> front, but a lot newer design and presumably far better at O&M, even given
updates to the 412.
> But I consider it a bit ridiculous to call any helo that weighs over
10,000 lb. + gross,
> "light". Bell used to draw the "light" line at 6,500 lb., up to 10,000
lb. was intermediate,
> up to 15,000 lb. (IIRR) was medium, and anything over that was heavy.

Yeah, but remember how big the jump was in size when they originally went
from the Huey in the assault units to the "Tuna Boats". I can't see them
buying anything that has less lift capability (in terms of number of warm
bodies)than the old UH-1H for the LUH role, which would rule out the MDH 500
series, etc.

>
> <snip>
>
> > I doubt the Army wants to blow
> > any
> > > > > > more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would
prefer
> > not
> > > > to,
> > > > > > integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you
bought
> > > > only
> > > > > > UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with
> > contingency
> > > > plan
> > > > > > force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to
want
> > to
> > > > > > integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey,
its
> > > > > > early--who knows?
> > > > >
> > > > > At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that,
> > > >
> > > > That is not what AvLeak is saying.
> > >
> > > I know, but that assumes they understand the briefing and slides any
> > better than I do;-)
> >
> > I don't know how much credibility we can put in these slides, or for
that
> > matter in some of the ridiculous verbage in the transcript--I can just
see
> > junior/midgrade staff weenies lstening to their bosses in those
confusing
> > exchanges cringing and saying to themselves, "No, you idiot! That is NOT
> > what that means!"
>
> LOL. Yes, I could definitely see that, having listened to Generals
(retired and serving) blow
> the details that any bright kid could straighten them out on. I often
wonder why the TV
> networks don't put some 12-year-old modeler on staff during wars, just to
correct the errors
> made by the 'expert' commentators. To be fair, though, such details are
generally pretty far
> below their paygrade -- after all, that's why they _Have_ staffs, to deal
with the nuts and
> bolts.

True enough--but they should be smart enough, and have enough self assurance
as regards their ego, to say, "Hey, let me turn this over to LTC (or MAJ, or
even CPT) Rubrmeetsroad to handle your questions on the details." In my
experience they can often be like politicians in regards to wanting to be in
the spotlight when the cameras/recorders are running.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > I
> > > > doubt the amount of training required to prepare those Huey wrench
> > turners
> > > > for a platform like the 412 is any different from what is required
to
> > > > prepare them for the UH-60, and unlike the AC side, those wrench
turners
> > > > often spend their entire career in the same unit, so turnover won't
be
> > as
> > > > big an issue. Crew training is not likely to be a major issue,
> > either--the
> > > > ARNG already manages C-23 training, just as the ANG is heavily
involved
> > in
> > > > pilot training for the F-16 and F-15. Doing an in-house
qualification
> > course
> > > > at either or both the eastern or western ARNG aviation training
sites
> > (AZ
> > > > and PA, IIRC) would be no biggie as they have run crew training
programs
> > for
> > > > years now on Cobras, Chinooks, and even Blackhawks and Apaches.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > If the idea is to neck down the the minimum number of systems, why
even
> > put up with the hassle
> > > of the extra pipeline?
> >
> > Guy, face it, even the slide show is kind of clear in that a new line of
> > utility helos is coming.
>
> I agree, the question in my mind is are they going to be "light" enough to
also be reasonable
> OH a/c, or are they really going to be two separate airframes. We'll just
have to see what the
> LUH RFP asks for in terms of weight and capacity.

My bet is two different platforms. That not only allows them to choose
optimal performers for both different roles, but also spreads the largesse
among more congressional districts. :-) With only around 25 light fixed wing
lifters under consideration, that contract will go to LMCO/Alenia, with
actual manufacture occuring in Italy (not worth setting up another line for
that order size). I bet we start seeing all kinds of ads in the trade rags
from the different manufacturers extolling the virtues of their aircraft for
each (and in some cases every) role. Agusta will pitch its birds (maybe even
the A-129 for the OH/LAH role), Bell will pitch its aircraft, MDH its own,
and Sikorsky will scurry around in the background and try to convince folks
that we *really* need to just select the Blackhawk for the LUH role...it is
going to be a free for all, since an aggregate of over 600 aircraft, or two
contracts for 300+ each, is going to be one of the bigger pots at stake on
the worldwide military helo market for some time to come.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

Peter Stickney

February 28th 04, 09:57 PM

In article >,
John Hairell > writes:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:01:08 -0600 (CST), wrote:
>
>>I'd think if there were more similarities than differences, there'd be a
>>majority of parts interchangable. Any idea just how few are
>>interchangable? I don't but I'd bet there are very, very few!
>
> I don't mean similar at the rivet level, with interchangeable parts -
> I mean similar in design philosophy, with the later design being to
> some degree a derivative of the previous design, just as the F-106 was
> related to the F-102. To me there are significant design
> similarities between the CH-21, CH-46, and CH-47.

Well, Gee. In that situation, you can make a case as far back as teh
original HRP-1 in 1945. (Counter-rotating tandem rotors). It you want
to get persnickity about overlapping rotor disks, though, you'd have
to leave out the HRP-1/HRP-2/H-21/Vertol 44 line and jump right to teh
HUP-1. It's sort of like saying that a UH-60 is basically an R-4.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Roger Curry

March 21st 04, 03:20 AM

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

March 21st 04, 06:02 PM

> 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

March 21st 04, 11:15 PM

"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

March 22nd 04, 12:13 AM

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

March 22nd 04, 04:07 AM

"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

Jeb Hoge

March 22nd 04, 05:49 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

> 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.

I remember a few years back being startled like hell by an EH-101
flying fairly low and slow (lower than most of the Blackhawks that
transit the area) over the I-395/King Street interchange just south of
the Pentagon. At the time, I think I'd only seen one or two pictures
of the beast, and it sure wasn't an everyday sight to see any helo
that low, let alone something that unusual. Still wasn't as cool as
seeing a B2 Spirit drifting over DC Metro on Armed Forces Day, though.
:)

AgustaWestland's got photos in its gallery from that visit.
http://www.agustawestlandinc.com/gallery.html

Peter Kemp

March 23rd 04, 01:29 AM

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

March 23rd 04, 04:30 AM

"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

March 23rd 04, 10:40 PM

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

March 24th 04, 03:22 AM

"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
>
>