TH-57 replacement - Bell 407GX and AW119Kx?

[chopper2004]

In light of recent shifts in US Army Aviation, in particular the moving to UH-72A as primary trainer , have

Bell Pitches 407GX for Navy Trainer Helicopter Program | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140409/DEFREG02/304090035/Bell-Pitches-407GX-Navy-Trainer-Helicopter-Program)

and AW pitching the AW119KX

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140409/DEFREG02/304090035/Bell-Pitches-407GX-Navy-Trainer-Helicopter-Program


Cheers

[VegasRobbiedvr]

With the looming threat of reduced budgetary funds, the Army is looking to cut operational costs. It is retiring the Kiowa Warriors, replacing them with UAS (unmanned aerial systems) to be teamed up with the AH-64E. Also retiring the TH-57, since the fleet is all muli-engined airframes no longer need a single engine trainer! US Army aviation already has 400 non-combat muli-engine airframes (UH-72s) so all but 100 shifted from national guard and reserve units to mother Rucker. The loosing national guard and reserve units get uh-60s. As do the reserve and national guard Apache units (they too loose their attack aircraft to be replaced by Blackhawks)! With this plan, there is no requirement to purchase the airframes from your suggestion!

[Ian Corrigible]

VegasRobbiedvr,

Different beast: the Army's TH-67 Creek replacement effort is covered here (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/534271-uh-72-rucker-whats-army-thinking.html); chopper2004's thread relates to replacement of the Navy's TH-57 SeaRanger, which may also attract offerings from Airbus Helicopters, Enstrom, MD Helicopters and Robinson.

I/C

[Lonewolf_50]

Army not looking to buy new helicopters
S-97 and V-280 ought to just shut down now. :ok: Got it. :}

The Navy has been investigating the problem of getting IFR certified trainer for some years, and to do it at a low cost. There have been a few false starts. The IFR cert the TH-57 got when it replaced the Huey as instrument training platform won't be replicated, since standards have become firmer in the last 30 years.

The cost per hour of helicopter operations (which trains over half of the people who get winged as naval aviators) has a siginficant impact on what they will eventually buy.

Personally, I hope they buy a Bell product, but Bell may not put forth the best bid.

[tottigol]

Matter of fact when was the last time they did?

[PhlyingGuy]

I think a 407 or a 505 would probably be the best solution overall, however I wouldn't be surprised if they just leverage off the LUH buy for the trainers. Or maybe create a joint training program now that they're trying to qualify Apaches for sea based operations?

[Um... lifting...]

After having been around during the USAF / USN JPATs program, I seriously doubt the Army & the Navy are going to willingly get into bed together on a training program.

The cultural differences are vast.

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/397564_10152344843664814_1446822675033391464_n.jpg

http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/AgustaWestland-Offers-New-Trainer-in-U-S-Navy-Competition_81879.html#.U07NAV7GLLQ

[Lonewolf_50]

After having been around during the USAF / USN JPATs program, I seriously doubt the Army & the Navy are going to willingly get into bed together on a training program.

The cultural differences are vast.
Yes. I too bear the scars of JPATS and its varoius wreckage left in the wake. :mad: Don't get me started.

[PhlyingGuy]

I certainly can't talk about past experiences... But with the budget crunch... I'm sure navy heli trainer replacements are towards the bottom of the priority list. I'm sure some pentagon civi will promote this idea somewhere though.

Never thought the Army would do what it's doing....

[Stinger10]

55% of ALL Naval Aviators are helo/tilt pilots and they train on the most obsolete, irrelevant aircraft in the training command. The F/W Strike pipeline was taken care of 20 years ago with the T-45, and Primary has been fixed with the T-6 Texan II, and the T-44 is still more modern and relevant than the tired out TH-57.

The cost to replace the helo training fleet would be like the cost of 3 days on the :mad: JSF program.......

[Stinger10]

It would be a huge mistake to equate Army and Navy Helo training. All similarities stop at "This is a helicopter...."

I just hope a bad decision by the Army to push the wrong type of helicopter into INITIAL Helicopter training doesn't splash the Navy. The UH-72 is a square peg in a round hole for initial training. Twins are expensive for no training benefit, and this particular aircraft has some serious limitations like mast moment overstress, and prohibition from t/r malfunctions and autos to contact. All still very relevant and important skill builders for student helo pilots. There is a reason why you don't find the EC-145 in that role hardly anywhere.

[Stinger10]

I spent a lot of time training military helicopter pilots and the argument about the Army not "needing" a S/E trainer because all their combat aircraft are multi-engine is really irrelevant rationale.

First, the reason the Army and Navy are flying S/E Trainers right now had NOTHING to do with flying S/E combat helicopters. It was simply because they are cheaper to operate and simpler to teach a brand new student helicopter pilot. Students get no benefit from learning to fly helicopters on anything but S/E and can actually become a distraction adding to initial training time because you would have to spend additional time teaching OEI procedures, when all they should be focused on is learning how to hover, autos, etc... OEI should be introduced after students have developed the basic helicopter skills and move beyond initial helicopter training.

The Army reasoning is like saying you should teach a kid how to ride a bike on a 20 speed, road racing bike.......:ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

Stinger:


/rant mode on

CNATRA and NAVAIR have been "saving the Navy Enterprise money" on training aircraft F/W (ten year delay in implementing T-6) and Rotary Wing (TH-57 with routine double and triple pumps, hot pits) and have reached the end of "defer" benefits. Oh dear, is the cliff that close?

The A to C conversion for the T-45 ran into a lot of push back from higher echelons when money came up, but did get well over time.

The "T-44 glass cockpit" and avionics upgrade fiasco is another story. TC-12 flight simulator is another case of "you would not believe it unless someone told you the story" training system fun. :bored:

Why anyone would assume that the replacement Navy helicopter trainer program will not be a bit of a mess is beyond me. The track record in the past 20 years for training aircraft acquisition speaks for itself. (If you take a gander at what the "proposed" versus "eventual" T-45 training syllabus models are, that's another story full of belly laughs).


/rant mode off

The Army might be far better off taking this one on by themselves. Better chance for what they get to suit their service requirements.

[Stinger10]

You must be familiar with the cost curve of aircraft? Assuming the answer is yes...... and that over time OLD aircraft become much more expensive than new aircraft to operate.....

Well the "Navy Enterprise" is currently paying $1150/hr (includes fuel and TBO costs) to fly their TH-57s so they are on the vertical backside of the cost curve and costing you and I a lot of tax $$$$.

The Navy accepted the rational the aircraft needed to be modernized in 2007 with the TH-57D program, and ultimately suffered an equally embarrassing fiasco to the T-44 Glass Cockpit, and had to cancel the effort.

Problem is that because the acquisition process fails the customer, the assumption is the NEED goes away too........:ugh:

[Shawn Coyle]

Do the end customers of this flying training actually operate any single engine helicopters?
Someone should examine the RNZAF helicopter training - starts on A109s - lots of simulator time and systems operations training. Not much (if any time) teaching autorotations, but lots of time on single engine failures. Interesting!

[Stinger10]

I have heard of the RNZAF training on the A109s, but when you are talking about a throughput for the US Army of 900-1500 students per year and US Navy 450-600 students per year,the solution has to be practical, simple and efficient in the initial phase of helicopter training.

There are other solutions out there,but none have to deal with that kind of student throughput, and variety between Naval and Army training.

[Lonewolf_50]

You must be familiar with the cost curve of aircraft? Assuming the answer is yes...... and that over time OLD aircraft become much more expensive than new aircraft to operate.....

Well the "Navy Enterprise" is currently paying $1150/hr (includes fuel and TBO costs) to fly their TH-57s so they are on the vertical backside of the cost curve and costing you and I a lot of tax $$$$.
I am painfully aware of that.
The Navy accepted the rational the aircraft needed to be modernized in 2007 with the TH-57D program, and ultimately suffered an equally embarrassing fiasco to the T-44 Glass Cockpit, and had to cancel the effort.
Also aware of that. If you want to understand how that happens, first understand the acquisition culture in the Navy ... :p

Problem is that because the acquisition process fails the customer, the assumption is the NEED goes away
No, what is assumed is "they'll somehow manage to do more with less." What the Navy eventually finds out is when one hits the wall, and oh dear, it is indeed more expensive to fix it later.

No lessons learned.

[Gemini Twin]

Do you think it will be possible to get something that will cost LESS than $1150/hr?

[Stinger10]

Given that the US Army is apparently willing to start paying $2100-2500/hr to use the UH-72 as an initial trainer, that's a relevant question.

If the Navy stays true to the S/E requirement, then yes. To put it in perspective, they are currently paying $1150/hr for an antiquated trainer, when they could be flying a modern, relevant trainer for the same or less hourly cost, and get better training for the students. :D

[Lonewolf_50]

Stinger, you left out the middle part.
The actual cost of acquisition of the entire training sytsem.

On the basics, I very much agree with you. There is a sound argument to be made to move forward to the next generation of helicopter. S/E is fine for training purposes.

[Stinger10]

US Army also says they really don't "need" to teach this critical helicopter survival skill any longer...... Flight school is the ONLY place you get to learn this skill to a touchdown. Doesn't matter how many engines a helicopter has, many other types of emergencies exist that terminate in a power-off landing (full auto). Twin-engine EC-135 lost all power and crashed into the pub in Glasglow as a specific example, but the Army feels its no longer relevant training. :mad:

Auto-rotation training drives German army light-twin requirement
Germany is to acquire a fleet of five light-twin rotorcraft to make up for a problem discovered with its 14 Airbus Helicopters EC135 basic trainers that leaves them unsuitable to perform certain crucial training maneuvers.
Speaking at an event at the German army's aviation training school in Bückeburg near Hannover, Lt Col Guido Krahl said the requirement had been created specifically to fulfill a need for auto-rotation training.
The EC135s, he says, are unable to be used for the task as the service requires auto-rotations to be carried out to the ground, in order to adequately prepare pilots for combat scenarios.

"When you do it a lot you get a vibration with the rotor blades, and it doesn't allow the user to do it so much or so often in a short sequence," Krahl says. He says the issue could cause "small cracks" in the blades, which would then need to be replaced. The service has been aware of the issue since it began operating the helicopters in 2010.

"Today our defense ministry is in close connections with helicopter manufacturers to get new aircraft for auto-rotations," he adds.
For its part, Airbus Helicopters insists there is no problem performing the maneuver in the EC135 "even to the ground, as it is part of the certification". However, the potential for costly damage to be incurred may make the aircraft unsuitable for entry-level students, it adds.