On 2005-04-05 17:41:55 -0400, "Helowriter" said:

1.Apaches did very, very well in the fight for Baghdad and elsewhere in
OIF. And those people were using more than spitballs.

Yep, same as the Afghans (couldn't throw a rock -- an item in which
that nation abounds, if only there was a market they'd be rich as
Saudis, and they're much nicer chaps when they're not shooting at you
-- without hitting 14.5 or [gulp] 23mm AA. And 12.7s were literally
more common than pencils.

Their marksmanship was fortunately horrible, ignorance of or absence of
sights helped there. But if one of them got lucky and lit a copter up
it was generally time to find a nice place to park, even in an Apache.

The idea that the Apache is armored well enough to go toe to toe with
AA guns was embedded in Army doctrine. I think that fallacy (which the
WWI aviators, and the WWII fighter-bombers, and the Vietnam guys all
had to relearn) been kicked out of bed. Nothing like losing a dozen
airframes in one go, even if they do make it back to base with holes
the size of your fist in MR transmissions and whatnot.

2. You're right - that sounds like B.S. A foreign competition pulled
the same stunt requiring a cargo container just longer than the basic
H-92 cabin

I have to relook the cabin size thing, I want to be certain I have the
relative sizes of the NH90, S-92 and EH101 straight (from smallest to
largest) but Sikorsky was told that by the Navy -- something that would
not fit their helicopter needed to go on, and "sorry old boy, for
putting you through this." And Sikorsky decided not to appeal. Does
that mean they agree? Does that mean that they knew "the fix was in?"
These are the kinds of questions where execs who appear forthcoming,
change the subject.

You can always find an angle with which to rig a contest. I'm just not
sure why our military would want to play those games again for the
benefit of Agusta Westland. If the PRV competition is rigged, I would
hope for a Congressional investigation.

Well, one of the requirements is that the a/c air-refuel at 10,000 MSL.
Be difficult for any of the contenders to meet that but easiest for the
EH101.

You could argue that this is a legit requirement. AFSOC lost an HH in
Afghanistan doing the daft thing they do over there, refuel while
flying through the valleys. At night. Of course, they need to do that
because the HH60 has the unrefueled range of a spitball, so on a 150 NM
radius run (below average in Afghanistan), you are hitting the tanker
twice, once each going and coming.

Murphy's law (and the use of stateside HH units for maritime SAR) means
that you will be doing this when weather is in **** state.

If they're going to do that, they need a Chelton display, not strictly
rely on RADALT and FLIR which work OK in rolling terrain but in the
mountains, can only tell you you're going to die a couple seconds
before you hit. The Chelton displays the terrain from maps in memory.
Works even when the FLIR is choking on dust or whatever. And it's TSOd
and it's dirt cheap. So naturally the Pentagon, which is only
interested in max bennies for legions of uniformed or retired/industry
procurement wallahs, is not buying.

3. The HH-60 falls short only in that requirements (and loads) have
grown.

Gotta disagree with you there. Talk to the pilots and especially the
PJs in AFSOC. The ones that never flew the H-3 or H-53 are resigned to
the 60, but it always was a mismatch with the mission. A PJ can't
properly treat a rescuee, hunched over in the back of the cabin. And on
the old Sikorskys (as on all the new contenders except, I believe, the
Osprey, which isn't a serious contender for this contract), the pilot
can get out of his seat and stretch (or be relieved by a relief pilot).
In the 60 he's pretty well stuck for the duration of the mission.

Finally, there's that short legs problem that, as I said, literally
kills people. The S-70/H-60 is a fantastic helicopter, but not in this
job.
--
cheers

-=K=-

Rule #1: Don't hit anything big.