CSAR-X goes to Chinook
bummer!!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...G1M&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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Blackflies and Snow
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RN chinooks...?
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rules rules rules
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmmmm, this is starting to have a whiff of the KC-767 debacle....
CSAR-X Key Requirement Change Requested By Industry, Sources Say
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.
CSAR-X Key Requirement Change Requested By Industry, Sources Say
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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bush fancies the Merlin??
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. 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11...gusta_trouble/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11...gusta_trouble/