TH-57 replacement - Bell 407GX and AW119Kx?
Thread Starter
TH-57 replacement - Bell 407GX and AW119Kx?
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
and AW pitching the AW119KX
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...copter-Program
Cheers
Bell Pitches 407GX for Navy Trainer Helicopter Program | Defense News | defensenews.com
and AW pitching the AW119KX
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...copter-Program
Cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 10th Apr 2014 at 19:33.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US Army is NOT looking to buy new helicopters
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!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
VegasRobbiedvr,
Different beast: the Army's TH-67 Creek replacement effort is covered here; 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
Different beast: the Army's TH-67 Creek replacement effort is covered here; 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
S-97 and V-280 ought to just shut down now. 
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/tops...l#.U07NAV7GLLQ
The cultural differences are vast.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/tops...l#.U07NAV7GLLQ
Last edited by Um... lifting...; 16th Apr 2014 at 18:35.
Don't get me started.
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....
Never thought the Army would do what it's doing....
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its TIME
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 JSF program.......
The cost to replace the helo training fleet would be like the cost of 3 days on the
JSF program.......
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army/Navy helo training are far apart.....
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S/E vs Twin Trainers
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.......
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.......
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.
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.
/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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LW 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 $$$$.
The Navy accepted the rational the aircraft needed to be modernized in 2007 with the TH-57D program, and ultimately suffered an equally embarrassing fiasco to the T-44 Glass Cockpit, and had to cancel the effort.
Problem is that because the acquisition process fails the customer, the assumption is the NEED goes away too........
Well the "Navy Enterprise" is currently paying $1150/hr (includes fuel and TBO costs) to fly their TH-57s so they are on the vertical backside of the cost curve and costing you and I a lot of tax $$$$.
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........
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC
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.
There are other solutions out there,but none have to deal with that kind of student throughput, and variety between Naval and Army training.
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 $$$$.
Well the "Navy Enterprise" is currently paying $1150/hr (includes fuel and TBO costs) to fly their TH-57s so they are on the vertical backside of the cost curve and costing you and I a lot of tax $$$$.
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
No lessons learned.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT
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.
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.
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.
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.