Combat Search & Rescue Aircraft USA

[Dan Reno]

CSAR-X Program Facing More Delays
Aviation Week's DTI | Michael Fabey | March 26, 2008
http://images.military.com/pics/AV_Week_CSARX.jpgThis article first appeared at Aviation Week's Ares Weblog.

Under a Defense Department Inspector General (IG) investigation and more intense source selection scrutiny, the Air Force's $15 billion combat, search and rescue replacement helicopter (CSAR-X) program is further delaying its planned contract award.
The IG announced its investigation about a month ago into the way the Air Force changed a key performance parameter (KPP) change for deployability (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 25).
Late last month the Air Force notified bidders Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky that the sixth amendment to the request for proposals (RFP) -- in essence, a new RFP -- will be released some time in the spring, with an award to follow in October. The service explained the delay by saying it needed more time to evaluate the very detailed proposals. A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting on the program is likely to take place a month or so before the downselect.
Last fall Air Force officials expressed the hope that the award would be made by the summer. The CSAR-X work already has been delayed more than a year -- and it has been on the Air Force drawing board since the previous decade.
Initially, Boeing won the contract with its HH-47 Chinook variant. But Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky protested the award twice, with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustaining both on the basis of how the Air Force calculated certain lifecycle costs for the proposed aircraft.
Now added in the mix is the IG investigation into the KPP change. As first reported by Aerospace DAILY, the Air Force changed a crucial bit of wording in the requirement, saying that a disassembled CSAR-X helicopter had to be only "flight" ready -- instead of "mission" ready -- within three hours. The Air Force said it vetted the change properly, but its own documents call that assertion into question.
Air Force officials told Congress that Lockheed Martin had asked for the change, but the service's own documents show the service had made the change prior to when it said Lockheed suggested a wording clarification. Lockheed said it never asked for any such change (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 8).
Boeing would have likely benefited most from such a wording change, analysts said. Boeing said it never requested the KPP change, but the company acknowledged a briefing with the Air Force in April 2005 -- shortly before the service made the change -- in which deployability times apparently were discussed.
Besides the IG investigation, another wrinkle in the competition is the recent $35 billion tanker award to the team of Northrop Grumman and EADS, which has been protested by Boeing.
Lawmakers have started to use the tanker deal as an example of how the Pentagon needs to avoid giving too many major contracts to teams with foreign partners. Lockheed Martin's partner on CSAR-X for its HH-71 candidate is AgustaWestland.
But Lockheed also could benefit from the tanker competition. The HH-71 proposal suffered because of past performance issues the Air Force cited with Lockheed's presidential helicopter, which is based on the same European aircraft.
However, the tanker program may have established a precedent by rating entries based on multiple past performance programs instead of being so heavily weighted mostly on one.

[SASless]

We cannot ignore the strategic importance of keeping certain industries strong and viable even if it costs to do so. Government has a responsibility to keep industrial capability for such things as ship building, aircraft manufacturing, and the like open even if the product is not needed immediately but would be important in the event of War. Spreading the eggs around into several baskets makes sense strategically even if not financially.

Another question is when will the government ever be able to write a single RFP and get it right the "first" time rather than continuing to modify or issue "new revised RFP's".

The old way of getting rich in government contracting was to bid cheap on the contract and get well on change orders, modifications, and tooling.

Are we re--inventing the wheel here?

[chopper2004]

Bring back Team US101 CSAR-X. ;):cool:

Seriously forget the VXX program delays...and budgeting rhubarb...look at the recent AAR trials look at the accomplishments of 28 Sqn (AC) during combat deployments to Iraq.

Probably better chance of survival within the Pentagon walls and present combat zones. I am not knocking the accomplishments of the existing MH-47E nor its capability as it has been doing fantastic work with the 160th for 2 decades:D then why couldnt they take a bunch of the newer MH-47F being delivered and paint them in AF grey and have the AFSOC guys to get experience of this?

[SASless]

why couldnt they take a bunch of the newer MH-47F being delivered and paint them in AF grey and have the AFSOC guys to get experience of this?

But my very dear chap.....green is green and blue is blue....and never, never, never will they simply turn purple with a stroke of the brush.:*

One must recall Rule One of Bureaucracy......."Always enlarge and protect!".:=

Read up on the historical relationship of the USAF (nee Army Air Corps) and the Army. The C-7 Caribou saga is a typical example.....as was the absolute gall of the Army in thinking they could arm OV-10 Mohawks.:ugh:

Some very Blue Toes got walked on by Combat Boots.....but the Air Force won the day at much expense to the Army.:{

[Darkhorse30]

SASless,
Mohawks were OV-1's not OV-10's. OV-10's were Bronco's.

[SASless]

OOPS! Brain-Finger interface failure!

[Dan Reno]

CSAR Contract Delayed Again

April 15, 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer

The long-anticipated awarding of a $10 billion contract for a military search-and-rescue helicopter has been delayed again -- from July to October -- to comply with changes in the law restricting use of imported specialty metals.
Boeing said April 14 that it had received a draft of the new bid proposal, called Amendment 6, in what the Air Force calls its CSAR-X competition.
This has evolved into a bitter competition involving three big defense contractors, all with major operations in the Philadelphia area.
In 2006, a new model of the Philadelphia-built Boeing Chinook won the initial competition. The victory promised future orders for 144 helicopters and as many as 400 new jobs at the Boeing Co. plant in Ridley Township, Delaware County.
But objections from rivals -- Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and Lockheed Martin Corp. -- persuaded the Government Accountability Office to order a new round of bidding and revised specifications.
Boeing responded to that request in January, saying it remained confident that it would win again. Boeing continues to tout that its entry is similar to models that are already flying combat missions and has no untested high-risk technology.
The latest draft of the bid request, which incorporates changes in the law on the use of specialty metals, was issued last week. Boeing said April 14 that it would submit comments and questions today.
Boeing said the drive shaft, transmission, leading edges of the blades, and other critical parts contained high-strength steels, titanium and other specialty metals.
It could not say how much foreign specialty metal is used in its CSAR-X entry or the Army (http://www.military.com/news/article/csar-contract-delayed-again.html?col=1186032310810#) CH-47 F and G models, which it builds in the suburbs of Philadelphia for transport and special-operations missions. The United States has long sought to use domestic sources for those metals.
The Boeing entry uses two rotors, working in tandem -- technology invented in suburban Philadelphia by helicopter pioneer Frank N. Piasecki, who died Feb. 11.
The rivals are single-rotor aircraft: Sikorsky H-92 Superhawk and Lockheed Martin US101, which is based on a design developed in Europe. The US101 has been selected for the new "Marine One" presidential helicopters and is destined to replace the aging Sikorsky VH-3D Sea Kings in that role.
Building helicopters is a growing part of the Philadelphia region's economy. Boeing, Sikorsky (West Chester), and AgustaWestland (Northeast Philadelphia Airport) manufacture various models of five types of helicopters here. In addition, Piasecki Aircraft Corp. (Essington, Delaware County) develops new rotary-wing technology.
Lockheed Martin helicopters are built elsewhere, in partnership with other firms.

[Dan Reno]

April 16, 2008
CSAR-X: Whence That Fifth S-92 Blade?
Where did that fifth blade on Sikorsky Aircraft's S-92-based Combat Search and Rescue X (CSAR-X) proposal come from? The added blade has been in trade press headlines for a couple of weeks. The stories cite the fifth blade as a recent change prompted by the two-year delay in the U.S. Air Force's contract award; the added blade was planned for follow-on Block 10 CSAR-X aircraft but moved forward to the initial Block 0 configuration, they report. That award, originally made in November 2006 to Boeing for 141 aircraft based on the CH-47, was set back by successful protests from Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky. The Air Force aims to make a new award by October. Sikorsky now says the fifth blade has been in its plans since at least early 2006. Its director of Air Force business development, Mike Farage, said he urged the change shortly after he joined the Sikorsky team. A former USAF rotary- and fixed-wing pilot and special-operations wing commander, Farage said the fifth blade gives the S-92 the maneuverability and performance needed for the CSAR mission. "We made a conscious decision back in 2005 to put a fifth blade on this thing," he said. "We did not go public with that. We just did that. It was never discussed outside Sikorsky and the Air Force channels."

[heli1]

Of course Sikorsky are also looking to stretch the fuselage in their effort to meet the CSAR spec.....what they really need to do of course is then add a third engine........and call it an HH-71 !