CSAR-X goes to Chinook

[dangermouse]

anounced on Bloomberg this pm

:( bummer!!!

but at least it wasnt the H92!

DM

[Melchett01]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azquj0bAGG1M&refer=home

The announcement makes interesting reading - the EH-101 doesn't even get a mention as being a contender. But then again, the same thing happened in a Jane's article last year where the 101 was mentioned in the very last line as an "oh yes, and there are some foreign wallahs with their whirly-gig thingy as well".

Hardly surprising though. Wonder what impact the Mid-Terms had on the decision?

[dmanton300]

Interesting to note the -101 was the preferred option of the Air Force though. . .I'm sure the Chinook will do a sterling job, but once again those who choose are not the ones who have to use.

[Jackonicko]

The Chinook is a magnificent heavy lift helicopter, but if you want to rescue/insert/extract surely the noisiest helicopter in existance is not the most sensible choice?

[AngloPepper]

Bizarre. The USAF uses none of the competitors, but the VH-71 is going to the USMC and of course the army uses the-47. So where the heck does the "no new airframes in the supply chain" argument actually have any traction? In fact, you'd think that a chance to affray development costs for the -71 and increase the experience base with that aircraft would have tilted the table in that direction, if logistics were really a concern.

[arthurwellington]

I guess the Army and USMC must be more interested in the extra lift than choosing the best ac for the job. Either that or there will be jobs in Texas.

[Tourist]

Chinook is what I would pick every time.
Don't understand why you are surprised.
Fast, Heavy lift, built to take damage and keep flying and repairable once it has been hit, proven, wind direction independantish, plus whilst it is noisy, it is a very non directional noise.
We should have the buggers in the RN!

[dangermouse]

OK

what about a blade folding system (oops doesn't have one, need a MUCH bigger boat)
and a naval cleared undercarriage (oops missed that as well, so we'll build the flight deck with cushions to absorb the landing energy)
and a marinised structure (it'll fizz well or have to be painted in WD40 all the time)
and a deck lock/harpoon (I know we will always have to fly on smooth sea days, that'll be OK)
and flotation kit (never mind it's not like it's going to be flying over water is it.....)

get real!!

As Jacko said its a great lifter but after 40+ years in service you gotta wonder why there isn't a Navy variant (or do you?)

If you look at the selection objectively the Chinook was always the lower risk option of any of the propsoed aircraft and that probably swung the decision regardless of capability. Both the 101 and H47 could no doubt do the job but one at less programme and technical risk than the other hence the choice (in this case politics probably had little to play)

DM

[bad livin']

IIRC, there was a lot of ongoing work into a motorised bladefold in the last few years. Anyone know if anything more came of it?

Wokka seems to have operated from Ocean and CVS fairly effectively so far, despite hassle of blade removal etc.

[Tourist]

As bad livin suggests, the RAF have been operating them off our decks with some success for a long time now.

Yes there are issues, and unfortunately the blade fold one is too expensive to retrofit it would seem. Apparently if we had asked during the origional buy it would have been in the price!

But on the subject of "Get Real!"

It does not fizz you plonker. Even the Apache only gently fizzes, and that still goes to sea.
Deck lock? Thats for Grey Lynx poofs only!
Naval undercarriage! Either you are impugning the standard of our landings, for which I respect the banter, or, as I rather suspect, you are labouring under the misapprehension that we have to fly an approach with no flare and catch a wire in a Naval Helo. This, whilst it sounds like fun, has not been neccesary since the invention of hovering.
Flot kit, well it would be nice to have, but would not be the only Naval helo not to have it fitted.

[BossEyed]

...you are labouring under the misapprehension that we have to fly an approach with no flare and catch a wire.

Whereas, as any fule kno, the Chinook method is to fly an approach with no flare and catch the rounddown with the rear gear. :}

[dangermouse]

some points well made but..

the regulations required to be met for a true Naval aircraft are rather more in rigorous regarding landing velocities (I was not impuning your piloting skill but as the landing area is moving as well, the resultant vertical velocity requires a stronger u/c than land ops) and overall structural strength, similarly the although I do not exactly know the SHOL limits for a Chinook I would imagine that any significant pitch/roll/heave is minimised. In order for a sensible ship limit some method of 'sticking' the aircraft on or restraining it on a moving deck is required (deck lock, bear trap, sub min pitch, haul down etc) if of course you only want to fly off a carrier thats not much of a problem but a naval aircraft should be able to do more than that.

I would hope the MoD have a duty of care that would insist on flot gear for substantial overwater ops, certainly all RN aircraft have them as do RAF Merlins and SK, I guess the Ah64 and Ch47 have got away with it due to 'grandfather' rights (nothing like a level playing field for design teams) , I know I would insist !!

In any case what would expect a CH47 to do for the RN missions?

DM

[Tourist]

No sub min etc for Sea King, Wessex etc, and they have aquitted themselves ok most would consider?
As to what role, the Jungly role perhaps?
847 Lynx has no flot kit, and that is on the most famously torpedo mimicking helicopter ever made. (Plus, the grey lynx flot kit never seems to work anyway!)
No prob with Chinook landing gear, except as BossEyed aludes, if you cannot judge the round down successfully!
Chinooks are very powerful a/c with very strong control power and as such have a lot of advantages when operating off decks, to say nothing of the wind direction independance.

[NURSE]

ok
CSAR-X hardly surprising the contract going all american. However have to agree with the Noise issue and what are they like for winching with the downdraft. Merlin would be a better option.

Navalised Chinook Why? why not by an existing proven navalised heavy life Helecopter like the CH53. However i do see the argument about now additional airframes. Why not replace HAR3 HC4 and Puma with merlin then and solve that support issue.

[Evalu8ter]

Why the Chinook on the naval mission? Simple, it outlifts a SK4 roughly 6 to 1, is 40-50kts faster and can land downwind with the boat alongside in harbour, oh, and it feels like it's been hewn out of a solid block of metal, not some fly-by-night carbon-fibre show-pony! I agree, however, that a CH-53 is a far better proposition (ie it folds, is marinised and has more disposable than a CH-47) but, at the moment (and in the short term) they are simply not available. The USMC are dragging cabs out of AMARC to service the front line and the CH-53X is simply too far away (and too high risk) to be included in any current plans. Even if we could persuade the US to let us have a slack handful of CH-53Es, they are eye-wateringly expensive to run (even by Chinook standards) and it would add yet another type to the inventory with all of the financial implications that brings. Bottom line, the RM have bought Viking and are going to buy LMAWS, no matter how much a Merlin huffs and puffs it isn't going to carry them-a couple of Chinnys in a TAG is a fact of life..Anyway, back to the thread-I'm very surprised that the HH-47 won in toto, for many of the reasons highlighted above. My money was on a mixed buy of HH-47 and US-101 to cover the MH-53/HH-60 roles(the HH-47 as an insurance against CV-22 going pear shaped!) but, it does make sense from a pure performance basis, esp the 'Stan, to go HH-47. If you've ever had a go in the MH-53 you'll know how much extra stuff is bolted/welded/strapped onto that airframe, the HH-47 has growth potential to burn, and is far more battle-worthy than any of the other contenders.

[Tourist]

Thats what I was trying to say but unfortunately less eruditely!

[Autorev]

Gents,
The Naval willy waving is fine, however it is the USAF that has ordered the ac...the clue is in the AF bit - they are not required to be 'marinized'!

[ORAC]

Hmmmm, this is starting to have a whiff of the KC-767 debacle....

CSAR-X Key Requirement Change Requested By Industry, Sources Say (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/CSAR111607.xml&headline=CSAR-X%20Key%20Requirement%20Change%20Requested%20By%20Industry,% 20Sources%20Say&channel=defense)

At least one of the U.S. Air Force combat, search and rescue (CSAR-X) competitors - almost certainly Boeing - asked for the key performance parameter (KPP) requirement change that enabled the Boeing HH-47 Chinook variant to enter and stay in the race for the acquisition program worth up to $15 billion, according to Air Force and other sources with intimate knowledge of the program.

Only the Boeing aircraft faced a stiff challenge in meeting the three-hour reassembly time limit for the deployability requirement, say sources familiar with the acquisition program.

While competitors Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky both refused to comment now specifically about this issue, both companies previously have raised questions about the Chinook variant's deployability.

Boeing, though, denies steering the KPP change. "To be clear, Boeing had absolutely no input toward the KPP changes," company spokesperson Jenna McMullin said Nov. 15. "We agree that deployability is integral to saving lives, and the HH-47 will meet both mission and flight-ready requirements as a reliable, combat-proven platform."

Throughout the year, the Air Force has maintained that it made the KPP change because of programmatic, not competitor, concerns. But a report released Nov.15 by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) suggests the KPP change may have been ordered because the Pentagon wanted the Chinook so much that certain high-level parts of the Defense Department pressured the Air Force to consider the helicopter for sole-source procurement (DAILY, Nov. 15). A copy of the report was released to interested lawmakers on the afternoon of Nov. 14.

"Boeing received a copy of the POGO report this morning and we are reviewing it in detail," McMullin said. "We believe the Air Force has handled the requirements fairly and appropriately as they are the experts in determining mission needs - the HH-47 met the established requirements, and that has been validated by the GAO [Government Accountability Office]."

As first reported in Aerospace Daily, the KPP change occurred in the spring of 2005 during a crucial time of the CSAR-X competition (DAILY, Feb. 23). Air Force Special Operation Command (AFSOC) changed the three-hour reassembly deployability standard from "mission" ready to "flight" ready.

"This one-word change significantly altered the deployability requirement, weakening it to such a degree that Chinook became a viable contender," POGO reported.

The Air Force had made other KPP changes - some based on competitor input - but those changes went through a much more rigorous review than the deployability one.

As POGO points out, "'mission ready' (also known as 'mission capable') is defined by DOD indicating (an aircraft) can perform at least one and potentially all of its designated missions."

However, POGO notes, "'flight ready' is known as 'not mission capable airworthy' ... indicating that systems and equipment are not capable of performing any of their assigned missions because of maintenance requirements."

According to POGO, the Pentagon has wanted the Air Force to buy the Chinooks, no matter what the issue. "In April 2005, AFSOC requested a meeting with Boeing at the behest of the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) acquisition office," POGO says. "Boeing told AFSOC that [the company] did not believe the Chinook could meet the deployability requirement that the CSAR-X vehicle be able to be airlifted to the mission site, and within three hours be reassembled and mission ready."

Following that meeting, AFSOC officials requested that the Air Force Air Staff double the three-hour mission ready requirement to six hours, POGO says. "The Air Staff refused because not only were they opposed to weakening the requirement, but the CDD [capabilities development document] outlining the deployability KPP change would first have to pass through the requirements oversight process, to be vetted by JROC [Joint Requirements Oversight Council] and even the Air Force Requirements Oversight Council (AFROC) - a process that would push the program back several months."

The program is delayed nearly as much now because of two GAO-sustained protests of the award to Boeing by losing bidders Lockheed and Sikorsky. The latest revised request for proposals was expected on the evening of Nov. 15.

[GPMG]

I have little doubt that there are a fair few inaccuracies here, but apparently the Queen's flight is shopping with Sikorsky but Marine 1 may well be a Merlin that according to this very fine article, it can't even hover. :eek:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/21/queen_president_helicopter_sikorsky_agusta_trouble/

[ramp_up]

Dangermouse

CH47 - don't have flot gear as they float!!!

[Jackonicko]

GPMG

It's by Lewis Page.

You need read no further than that.

You know straight away that you'll get an ill-thought, badly written rant, founded on his habitual and always unsupported assumption that all US kit is always better than any European equipment, and that BAE and Westland in particular are know-nothing incompetents who couldn't design a butter knife that was fit for purpose. He's Jeremy Clarkson without the considered reflection or in-depth knowledge and research (which is worrying) and without the wit.

You have no need to suffer his excruciating grammar ("Sikorsky bathed in gratification"), his faux-casual slang (calling them whirlybirds and veeps doesn't make you any cleverer, nor does it make your piece any funnier or any more readable, Lew) nor must you be exposed to his cavalier disregard of the facts - even a fully equipped RAF Merlin HC.Mk 3 had a 5 tonne payload, and the lighter CH-149 had rather more. Before the Danish Merlins, EH101s had a maximum take off weight of 14,600 kg, but later variants raised this to 15,600 kg, giving a further increase in payload of one tonne.

[Compressorstall]

GPMG
The article is another anti-Merlin rant by an ex-RN non-aircrew officer, albeit with some time spent on a UAS in 1988-91.

[dangermouse]

Ramp up if you check my last post on this subject it was a year ago!!
so thanks for the input and all that......

DM

(and I think I detected a hint of sarcasm in GPMGs post)

[minigundiplomat]

Nurse/Jacko,

You keep missing the point. Why not ask the punters what THEY want. It would seem the Yanks did.

Do you want a large force in an LZ at the same time, giving more firepower?

Yes

Do you want more lift capacity?

Yes

Do you want to go faster?

Yes

Do you want a proven option?

Yes

Seen as you are about to launch Apocalypse Now to rescue a lost F16 mate, does a percieved noise surplus bother you?

Nope

The CH47 Vs Merlin downwash is negligble. The Chinook has normally finished with the air though.

[SARREMF]

Minigun

I am shocked! Another rant at AW! My my, you do like a theme dont you! You dont perhaps work for Boeing do you?

[busdriver02]

I actually fly the current CSAR aircraft, I can tell you any one of the three would be ok given the right circumstances/modifications. My problem with the 92 is that I fear once we add all the mission systems and fuel, there won't be much available weight left until we hit max gross weight. This is the problem we currently have with the 60 at sea level. The 101 is the most power limited of the three. The 47 is loud and big. I've seen the block 10 concept for the 47, and it included swept and anhedral tip caps, so it would seem they're thinking about noise and forward speed at least a bit. From what I've read here, I think the 92 would probably be the best choice as far as survivability is concerned. But then again, the available load of the 47 gives me the option of putting on a lot of armor. It's all a trade off. The one question I haven't heard anything about, and is not answerable on this forum is the various aircraft's ability to survive on a radar battlefield.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

"is the various aircraft's ability to survive on a radar battlefield."

If my memory serves me well from my SH days the CSAR cab was not going in on it's lonesome, FAR from it.............and anything "lighting up" was getting an early Xmas present in the form of a supersonic whooshbang.................:ok:

[busdriver02]

Of course we're going to have supporting assets tasked with dealing with any pop up threats. But that doesn't mean we don't have to survive the initial engagement and evade long enough for those supporting assets to destroy the threat.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

britbus,

Apologies as I am awhile out of SH but as I remember it the "package" included some fairly potent help and we were never scheduled to be "out in front" which did give one a sort of warm comfy feeling.........in fact iron sighted small arms/hmg and manpads were the biggest fear as no one knew where those fuc@kers would pop up :ok:

[minigundiplomat]

The UK CH47 Wing has operated all over the world, in every terrain, and with just about every threat going, lined up against them.
This is not the forum to discuss results in depth, and busdriver should be able to pick up the info easy enough.

The CH47 is battle proven.

No I don't work for Boeing. Though when an operator sounds like they work for the manufacturer, something is very, very right.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Only ever a "Plastic Pig" crewman Minigun but was always envious of what the "Twin Rotating Palm Tree's" could do, stay well chap :ok:

[NURSE]

Yes the RAF has operated Chinook all over the world and everyone within 10 miles knows where they have been hardly good for covert entry/extraction of teams?

[Tandemrotor]

All things are a trade off. CH47 is still the taxi of preference for some rather high profile customers, who like to do exactly what NURSE has just described.

CH47 simply offers many options in this role that nothing else (in the UK armed forces) can touch. (Anyone who doesn't already know what these 'options' are, doesn't need to know.)

When noise is crucial, a 'non helicopter' form of insertion/extraction is chosen.

QED

[Master of None]

I standby for lots of abuse from all for this but...the Chinook is surprisingly quiet when flown at extreme low-level and not at extreme power settings. The reasons for this, as I was told, are twofold. Firstly the blade slap noise is a low-frequency noise which doesn't go far after contact with the ground, which is the direction the majority of it goes (i.e. down). This is why the aircraft is known as being noisy because those who work at Benson, Brize or Lyneham will say that they knew a Chinook was coming a long time before it arrived. Typically that aircraft would have been in the instrument pattern at 1500' minimum, not a profile an aircraft on a CSAR mission would be on. Secondly the noise is very non-directional due to it's low frequency, the occasional 'wocca' does get thrown out but it is very difficult to pin point the direction of it's origin. I can say from personal experience that a Chinook has got within 20 sec of my position before I knew with certainty it was coming for me and from which direction, in a mountainous region admittedly. The converse is true of tail-rotor noise (high frequency), so whilst being lower volume it advertises it's presence at comparable ranges and is more easily DF'd (i.e. deciding which direction it is coming from.). My comments on the power settings refer to the fact that in excess of 140 kts the Chinook is very loud and thus loses the benifits mentioned above. Flown for the last 5 miles around 120-135kts this is not a factor. I've flown all of the current RAF inventory and they all have their place in the battlefield, the biggest dissapointment of Merlin not getting the contract was that we were hoping the US would do an 'AV8B' on it. Take a good concept, but limited result, and with their resources turn it into the aircraft it is capable of becoming.

[ORAC]

A couple of points.

The main concern about the selection at the moment is that on of the Key performance Parameters (KPP) (time till mission ready after deployment) was changed because the C-47 couldn't meet it (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/CSAR111607.xml&headline=CSAR-X%20Key%20Requirement%20Change%20Requested%20By%20Industry,% 20Sources%20Say&channel=defense). Now either it was a KUR or it wasn't, if it was it shouldn't have been changed without going back through a vigorous review process - which was skipped. Unless someone comes up with a valid explanation as to what happened Boeing may be back in KC-767 country.

The questions about AUW concerning the Merlin may be relevant when considered in light of the ongoing problems with the VH-71 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3252531&C=america).

[Modern Elmo]

A critical design review found that the Increment 1 aircraft met the needs of the first phase of the program, but an April systems requirements review revealed that nearly 2,000 design changes would be needed to meet Pentagon requirements for the second round of aircraft. The changes included a new tail, transmission and rotor blades.


Just a few, trivial tweaks.

[Evalu8ter]

Master of None. You have hit the nail on the head. Of course you can hear a Wokka for miles if it's going quickly at 1500-2000ft, but NoE the noise can be VERY effectively masked by good use of terrain and wind direction. Yes, over an isotropic surface this is not as effective, but, in that case, the visual/IR/Radar signature of a lot of other aircraft will be detected before the noise so the arguement is pointless.
It all comes back to one simple fact; the Chinook has got TONNES of disposable, ie growth, that the Merlin/S-92 will simply never achieve. The USAF have learnt that lesson with MH-53.
If you want to go a long way, land somewhere at high DA, carry enough troops for a GPP, fit armour and decent weapons and be independent of wind direction then the CH47 is the only way to go.
As Tandem Rotor says, the CH47 is the platform of choice for UKSF (for most roles) and SOCOM - it must be doing something right.
Oh, and survivability, the Chinook is by far the most survivable IMHO...not just because of armour/DAS, but also because of the tandem rotor layout.
We're not going to discuss the RCS here, but,having done an awful lot of EW in the Chinook, the right training and TTPs enable the aircraft to cope just fine in the Radar fight.
But back to the central point, does the USAF need a CSAR ac this capable as a MH-60 replacement?

[minigundiplomat]

At last!

Some voices of reason.

Nurse - You and Jacko can bang the noise drum as much as you like whilst pointing to the 'quiet' Merlin, but it's actually a trivial issue.

As is pointed out, where noise is such a critical issue, sending a Merlin will make no difference, and the guys will make other arrangements which don't involve helicopters.
Whilst quieter than a wokka, the Merlin's not exactly equipped with a Blue Thunder 'whisper mode'.

If it's not an issue, but range/payload/survivability are, then the Merlin is second or third choice. Ask your own branch at Bastion. They only want one aircraft type. Big, noisy and potent. And that's just the Aircrew

[RODF3]

Oh, and survivability, the Chinook is by far the most survivable IMHO...not just because of armour/DAS, but also because of the tandem rotor layout.


If you lose one rotor you still crash, same as a "conventional" helicopter. So where's the increase in survivability?

[Evalu8ter]

RODF,
This is not a comment on survivability if you lose a TR, but rather that the Chinook, due to the design, can take hits that other RW platforms wouldn't survive. Not surprisingly, this is due to the fact that the flight safety critical components are spread around the airframe, many are duplex systems, there is plenty of empty space for rounds to pass through and there is the judicious use of armour plate. Add in outstanding single-engine performance, good (and improving) DAS , an over-engineered airframe (witness how many have ripped of undercarriage legs/hit ships etc and carried on flying) and hard-worn battle experience in every major western conflict since Vietnam and you have one very survivable aircraft.