UH-72 to Rucker ? What's the Army thinking?
Stinger, that is a point well made, 
and informs the thought of suggesting something like IFS at a lower cost per hour be adapted (if possible) to mitigate your grim cost picture for helicopter training.
and informs the thought of suggesting something like IFS at a lower cost per hour be adapted (if possible) to mitigate your grim cost picture for helicopter training.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One nuance which I would offer up for consideration - with ever more advanced line aircraft (CH47F, MH60M, AH64E etc) which are glass cockpit and quite expensive to fly, you need a light twin trainer that can prepare crews for that environment.
If that light twin is able to be close enough to the line aircraft that it is able to significantly reduce the amount of transition hours flown on those advanced platforms before a pilot is operationally ready, then that becomes part of the business case in favour of the more advanced trainer.
If that light twin is able to be close enough to the line aircraft that it is able to significantly reduce the amount of transition hours flown on those advanced platforms before a pilot is operationally ready, then that becomes part of the business case in favour of the more advanced trainer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More square peg, round hole arguments........
UH-72s can’t do touch down autos, have a significant limit to the mast moment (should be about as common as TH-57 over-torques now, when the students start wiping out the cockpit while learning to fly)........and cost $2500/hr.
The simplest maneuvers from the Army's Lakota ATM have cautions regarding "mast moment". Touchdown auto and anti-torque maneuvers are PROHIBITED.
UH-72s can’t do touch down autos, have a significant limit to the mast moment (should be about as common as TH-57 over-torques now, when the students start wiping out the cockpit while learning to fly)........and cost $2500/hr.
The simplest maneuvers from the Army's Lakota ATM have cautions regarding "mast moment". Touchdown auto and anti-torque maneuvers are PROHIBITED.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Won't the US Army have the same issue with the UH-72 (EC-145)?
By all means Army, make the same mistake......
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Army: Lakota flight costs to shrink when helicopter used as trainer
Inside the Army - 06/30/2014
I/C
Inside the Army - 06/30/2014
While some projections have suggested that the operation and maintenance cost per flight hour for a Lakota is about $2,500, vs. $600 an hour for the TH-67, Col. John Lindsay, director of aviation G-3/5/7, told ITA in a June 18 interview at the Pentagon that those estimates are not accurate.
Lindsay said that the TH-67 actually costs about $1,200 per flight hour -- $560.58 for parts and $704.37 for support maintenance per flight hour -- while he believes the Army can reduce the projected cost of the Lakota. "Conservatively, the Army has estimated that we will bring the cost per flying hour for the LUH-72 down to $2,100 an hour," he stated.
The service may be able to reduce the cost per flight hour down to $1,900, narrowing the gap between the cost of the TH-67 and the LUH-72, he contended. "It's certainly not five times more expensive to operate the LUH-72, as some would have you believe," Lindsay said. "This is the estimate that was put together, that was vetted by Army staff and also folks up at [the Office of the Secretary of Defense]."
Other savings could be realized through by reducing training hours. This could entail eliminating certain maneuvers more necessary for single-engine helicopter training, like autorotations to the ground -- which the Army calls "crash and bangs," Lindsay noted.
Lindsay said that the TH-67 actually costs about $1,200 per flight hour -- $560.58 for parts and $704.37 for support maintenance per flight hour -- while he believes the Army can reduce the projected cost of the Lakota. "Conservatively, the Army has estimated that we will bring the cost per flying hour for the LUH-72 down to $2,100 an hour," he stated.
The service may be able to reduce the cost per flight hour down to $1,900, narrowing the gap between the cost of the TH-67 and the LUH-72, he contended. "It's certainly not five times more expensive to operate the LUH-72, as some would have you believe," Lindsay said. "This is the estimate that was put together, that was vetted by Army staff and also folks up at [the Office of the Secretary of Defense]."
Other savings could be realized through by reducing training hours. This could entail eliminating certain maneuvers more necessary for single-engine helicopter training, like autorotations to the ground -- which the Army calls "crash and bangs," Lindsay noted.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all wishful thinking by the Army.
The training environment at Rucker is actually much tougher on the airframe and will require more maintenance, not less.
Do those costs include the additional $800M to buy 90 more UH-72s?
Bottom line is there has been no analysis done to see if the UH-72 was a good fit for as an INITIAL trainer. Not a helicopter used at a training center like Ft. Irwin then just saying its been used as a trainer like the Army has tried to allege already.......
This is simply a case of the Army making it all fit because it makes the ARI work and the Army won't look bad in the short run for not having a use for fairly new helicopters. In the long run they WILL, correction the tax payer WILL, pay more, training WILL suffer, and the Army will end up looking for a more appropriate INITIAL training helicopter. Just like they did when they replaced the Hueys with TH-67s. All will be forgiven because the people that came up with this silly plan in the first place will have moved on, and up. Never to be held accountable for a bad decision based on very little analysis.
I am glad the Army staff and OSD vetted it...... Rucker, at the instructor level, is already is scratching their heads at this one.
The training environment at Rucker is actually much tougher on the airframe and will require more maintenance, not less.
Do those costs include the additional $800M to buy 90 more UH-72s?
Bottom line is there has been no analysis done to see if the UH-72 was a good fit for as an INITIAL trainer. Not a helicopter used at a training center like Ft. Irwin then just saying its been used as a trainer like the Army has tried to allege already.......
This is simply a case of the Army making it all fit because it makes the ARI work and the Army won't look bad in the short run for not having a use for fairly new helicopters. In the long run they WILL, correction the tax payer WILL, pay more, training WILL suffer, and the Army will end up looking for a more appropriate INITIAL training helicopter. Just like they did when they replaced the Hueys with TH-67s. All will be forgiven because the people that came up with this silly plan in the first place will have moved on, and up. Never to be held accountable for a bad decision based on very little analysis.
I am glad the Army staff and OSD vetted it...... Rucker, at the instructor level, is already is scratching their heads at this one.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Army Aviation establishment had a fairly good handle on requirements and procurement for same in 1972; knowledge and common sense have been dropping steadily since then, at a geometric rate.
The aviation procurement process for DoD in general, and Army Aviation most particularly, is now oriented around politics, enrichment of manufacturers (two factors which go hand in hand), and unreality.
McClellan in the early days of the Civil War said America needed a dictator and while that proved untrue, I would opine that military procurement in America might benefit from a Soviet-style politburo handing down decisions to design bureaus.
The sorry facts as we see them are ample proof that, in this regard, "free enterprise" isn't working for much except to impoverish the taxpayers, enrich some corporations, and turn Army Aviation activities into an ill-equipped, indecisive, confused and antic parody of the Keystone Cops.
The aviation procurement process for DoD in general, and Army Aviation most particularly, is now oriented around politics, enrichment of manufacturers (two factors which go hand in hand), and unreality.
McClellan in the early days of the Civil War said America needed a dictator and while that proved untrue, I would opine that military procurement in America might benefit from a Soviet-style politburo handing down decisions to design bureaus.
The sorry facts as we see them are ample proof that, in this regard, "free enterprise" isn't working for much except to impoverish the taxpayers, enrich some corporations, and turn Army Aviation activities into an ill-equipped, indecisive, confused and antic parody of the Keystone Cops.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army making a play for Navy Helicopter Training
I am hearing that during Sec. Hagel's visit to Ft. Rucker, the Army was briefing that they should take over all of helicopter training and make it a joint at Ft. Rucker.
So let me get this right.
The Army makes a poor decision without any analysis and decides to be the only operator on the planet to try and use the UH-72 (EC-145) as an initial training helicopter (which it is not suited for) because they have no other use for it, and now wants to share the wealth of that poor decision with the Navy who at least following the proper path and doing some analysis to determine what the right (TH-57) replacement helicopter should be?
DoD tried to drive primary flight training together with the USN & USAF for the T-6 (Texan II) and both have since walked away vowing not to do it again.
Navy better find their voice or based on the fact that the Sec. Def has already bought everything the Army has sold him so far, this could be the beginning of the end of helicopter training in Pensacola.
So let me get this right.
The Army makes a poor decision without any analysis and decides to be the only operator on the planet to try and use the UH-72 (EC-145) as an initial training helicopter (which it is not suited for) because they have no other use for it, and now wants to share the wealth of that poor decision with the Navy who at least following the proper path and doing some analysis to determine what the right (TH-57) replacement helicopter should be?
DoD tried to drive primary flight training together with the USN & USAF for the T-6 (Texan II) and both have since walked away vowing not to do it again.
Navy better find their voice or based on the fact that the Sec. Def has already bought everything the Army has sold him so far, this could be the beginning of the end of helicopter training in Pensacola.
I predicted this before.... I still think it's going to happen. JSF, JMR, etc.... training aircraft should be the most "consistent" across all platforms... at least among civi's who don't know any better.
The Navy, as it has fumbled the TH-57 replacement, has in one sense played into the Army's hands.
However, if you look at how JPATS worked out, this "it's all Joint" BS died like plains buffalo. I expect this grandstanding by the Army to likewise die. I'll suggest to you that tis is another of those "roles and missions" scraps that we saw after Dester Storm. Same crap, different day.
Army flight training: the old pattern was high school to flight school to the grave.
They have improved since then, of course. Got a peek about ten years ago as Rucker restructured their top to bottom program when they moved the Huey from the progression .. well that was the plan. About then Air Force came crying to the Navy to glom onto our Helo Training pipeline, and brought a bunch of unfunded requirements with them. Short answer was: no thanks, guys, you either accept our product as is or go and figure it out.
They went elsewhere.
Army aviation had some good ideas that the Navy might have taken a closer look at than they did. Maybe we'll see some plagiarism ongoing as Navy figures out their way ahead. Would not hurt, IMO.
The sheer volume of Navy rotary wing production argues for more than one base even when you look at all of the Services' requirements. (I am still under that NDA from the early 2000's BRAC meetings I "got to go to." (I went kicking and screaming!!!!)
There are limits to what any one facility can provide, and you should not set up a single point of failure system. Been out of that business too long to comment further.
However, if you look at how JPATS worked out, this "it's all Joint" BS died like plains buffalo. I expect this grandstanding by the Army to likewise die. I'll suggest to you that tis is another of those "roles and missions" scraps that we saw after Dester Storm. Same crap, different day.
Army flight training: the old pattern was high school to flight school to the grave.
They have improved since then, of course. Got a peek about ten years ago as Rucker restructured their top to bottom program when they moved the Huey from the progression .. well that was the plan. About then Air Force came crying to the Navy to glom onto our Helo Training pipeline, and brought a bunch of unfunded requirements with them. Short answer was: no thanks, guys, you either accept our product as is or go and figure it out. They went elsewhere.
Army aviation had some good ideas that the Navy might have taken a closer look at than they did. Maybe we'll see some plagiarism ongoing as Navy figures out their way ahead. Would not hurt, IMO.
The sheer volume of Navy rotary wing production argues for more than one base even when you look at all of the Services' requirements. (I am still under that NDA from the early 2000's BRAC meetings I "got to go to." (I went kicking and screaming!!!!)
There are limits to what any one facility can provide, and you should not set up a single point of failure system. Been out of that business too long to comment further.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....and turn Army Aviation activities into an ill-equipped, indecisive, confused and antic parody of the Keystone Cops.
I am certainly glad the old Traditions are being upheld!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army math....
Post-Hagel visit:
So the cost savings the Army is claiming to save is by using the UH-72 instead of the H-60 and not even against other alternative training aircraft.
Think of the money (a lot more than $30M) they would save with a more suitable, less than 50% cost per hour, single engine trainer that can do everything the Lakota can do. Especially with the cost to acquire 100 ADDITIONAL Lakotas factored in........
No wonder the Army doesn't want to produce any sort of AoA data, and do math in public.
For instance, the Army will be able to train pilots using night-vision goggles in the Lakota. They are currently trained to use night-vision goggles once they graduate to Chinook or Black Hawk choppers, which are far more expensive to fly. There is not enough time under the current training syllabus to train on night vision since students must be trained on two training aircraft, the general said.
Lundy said moving night-vision goggle training into the Lakota will save the Army about $30 million per year.
Lundy said moving night-vision goggle training into the Lakota will save the Army about $30 million per year.
Think of the money (a lot more than $30M) they would save with a more suitable, less than 50% cost per hour, single engine trainer that can do everything the Lakota can do. Especially with the cost to acquire 100 ADDITIONAL Lakotas factored in........
No wonder the Army doesn't want to produce any sort of AoA data, and do math in public.
Stinger, I am not sure if the Army had fitted their trainer 206's with provisinos for an NVG friendly cockpit. I do know that some of the OH-58 birds were so fitted, but that was field units, not trainers.
Navy was undertaking a new cockpit lighting scheme for TH-57 beginning a bit over 10 years ago, with the idea of fitting some of the TH-57's with AN/AVS 9 nvgs to put a few of the nvg flights into the helo syllabus. Not sure how that finally worked out, but I had not heard great news on that front. (Will take a peek and see what I can figure out).
Why the Lakota becomes attractive just because of NVG friendly set up is a bit of a mystery to me. I'd need to get a look at how the final version of Ruckers first to last training pipeline is built to get a handle on that. Again, been a few years since I had my hands on such things, so I'm a bit out to lunch on details.
EDIT: looks like the Navy NVG syllabus has been alive and well as far back as 2011, maybe before, with both sims and flights included. Progress!
Navy was undertaking a new cockpit lighting scheme for TH-57 beginning a bit over 10 years ago, with the idea of fitting some of the TH-57's with AN/AVS 9 nvgs to put a few of the nvg flights into the helo syllabus. Not sure how that finally worked out, but I had not heard great news on that front. (Will take a peek and see what I can figure out).
Why the Lakota becomes attractive just because of NVG friendly set up is a bit of a mystery to me. I'd need to get a look at how the final version of Ruckers first to last training pipeline is built to get a handle on that. Again, been a few years since I had my hands on such things, so I'm a bit out to lunch on details.
EDIT: looks like the Navy NVG syllabus has been alive and well as far back as 2011, maybe before, with both sims and flights included. Progress!
One Step CLoser
Lakota contractor signs contract on building in Daleville - The Southeast Sun: News
In other news, have seen on Airbus Helicopters Inc, FB page, a series of photos depicting the UH-72A Lakota being taken by sea from Germany back to the states. Have the cuts already taken place and the CMTC are losing some of their Lakotas (not the OPFOR ones painted)?
Cheers
In other news, have seen on Airbus Helicopters Inc, FB page, a series of photos depicting the UH-72A Lakota being taken by sea from Germany back to the states. Have the cuts already taken place and the CMTC are losing some of their Lakotas (not the OPFOR ones painted)?
Cheers
Of course, that kind of sim is bloody expensive, and ups your program cost ... but not the airframe operating costs.
As usual, I suspect DoD is playing a shell game with how money is counted agianst what ... an old game
played since long before I ever got involved in such things.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only those who either ignore or are unaware of the cost of maintaining a maintenance capability for a single type that no longer has any commonality with anything else in the military logistics chain would suggest that keeping a "orphan" aircraft type could be cheaper than utilizing an existing type for an extra mission-set.
Start with training the maintenance personnel (you will need more for a separate type than for a few more of an in-service type), then add in the costs of upkeep on maintenance equipment particular to that type, the costs of parts (most of which are no longer commercially made) for that equipment (resulting in having to buy new equipment to do the job), the costs of parts for the helos (some of which are no longer made, thus requiring a modernization program to replace those systems with ones that are still made/supported), and the other costs associated with a singular aircraft type.
Compare that to the costs for a type that is already in service that you are simply using for a different mission-set instead of what you would be using them for.
Start with training the maintenance personnel (you will need more for a separate type than for a few more of an in-service type), then add in the costs of upkeep on maintenance equipment particular to that type, the costs of parts (most of which are no longer commercially made) for that equipment (resulting in having to buy new equipment to do the job), the costs of parts for the helos (some of which are no longer made, thus requiring a modernization program to replace those systems with ones that are still made/supported), and the other costs associated with a singular aircraft type.
Compare that to the costs for a type that is already in service that you are simply using for a different mission-set instead of what you would be using them for.
CAE simulator installed
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So tell me about the commonality of the Lakota to any other helicopter in the US Army Fleet of Aircraft.....or any other Branch of the Military for that matter?
Now if you were referring to Black Hawks then perhaps you would have a point.
We are not talking about a complex aircraft here....they are Jet Rangers no matter what the Army calls them.
Are the aircraft being replaced any more unique than the 72's in reality?
The 72 program was a Rum Deal to begin with and has not gotten any better over the Years.
Now if you were referring to Black Hawks then perhaps you would have a point.
We are not talking about a complex aircraft here....they are Jet Rangers no matter what the Army calls them.
Are the aircraft being replaced any more unique than the 72's in reality?
The 72 program was a Rum Deal to begin with and has not gotten any better over the Years.