Commanche alternatives?

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/milita...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)

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/

"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/

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.

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

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/nationwo...adlines-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."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

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?

"Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message
news
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

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


"Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message
news
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

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:15:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message
news
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