Commanche alternatives?

R. David Steele wrote:

The CH-47F is a rather extensive remanufacturing program that's
going on right now. The Army expects it to let these aircraft serve
into the 2020s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch-47f-ich.htm

And everyone else is going to the V-22 platform instead?

Nope, you don't have the plot at all here.

The V-22 is not in the same lift class as the CH-47 or CH-53E. It's a
medium-lift platform, not a heavy.

The only buyers on V-22 are the Marines (replacing CH-46s) and Air Force
Special Operations Command (replacing MH-53s, which are smaller twin-engine
versions of the H-53, not the bigger three-engine CH-53E version the Marines
fly).

Right now there is no final plan to replace any of the heavy lift helos in
any of the services.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Henry J Cobb wrote:
R. David Steele wrote:
The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.

If the Army went for the V-22 would the AF object that it's "fixed
wing"?

The Army already flies plenty of fixed wing aircraft, and are talking about
replacing existing ones as aprt of the same plan that does away with
Comanche.

An armed Army Osprey might annoy the Air Force, though, thanks to Key West.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:31:46 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

read that the ASW platform, MH-53E Sea Dragon, was to be replaced
by the CH-60.

Wherever you read that...throw it away! Neither the MH-53E or CH-60
have anything to do with ASW. MH-53E is a minesweeping (and
logistics) bird; CH-60S (now MH-60S) is meant for a similar role.

What gets me confused is that we have the SH-60R which are
rebuilt older H-60s. Now is the MH-60 going to be the primary
helo or is it the CH-60? I gather that the AF uses the
nomenclature is MH-60. The CH-60 is Navy.

There is no such thing as a SH-60R, a CH-60, or a rebuilt SH-60
anymore.

MH-60R (formerly SH-60R) is the ASW helo; it is now new-build, not
remanufacture.

MH-60S (formerly CH-60S) is the VERTREP/SpecOps/MCM helo; it is also a
new-build, not remanufacture.

I don't think *anyone* flies anything called CH-60.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Rune Børsjø" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a
couple
of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to
targeting

How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

Not a reliable, discrete (not desirable to tell *everyone* "here I am!",
is
it?), and *operational* one for ground units I haven't. Your nominee to
fill
those requirements would be...?


Do consider that IFF can be set up that it doesn't broadcast, but only
sends an encrypted, low-probability of interception response to an
encrypted query. That said, IFF, like any other electronic system, can
fail.

R. David Steele wrote:
The CH-47F is a rather extensive remanufacturing program that's
going on right now. The Army expects it to let these aircraft
serve into the 2020s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch-47f-ich.htm

And everyone else is going to the V-22 platform instead?

Nope, you don't have the plot at all here.

The V-22 is not in the same lift class as the CH-47 or CH-53E. It's
a medium-lift platform, not a heavy.

The only buyers on V-22 are the Marines (replacing CH-46s) and Air
Force Special Operations Command (replacing MH-53s, which are
smaller twin-engine versions of the H-53, not the bigger
three-engine CH-53E version the Marines fly).

Right now there is no final plan to replace any of the heavy lift
helos in any of the services.

Sorry to play so dumb. But I am doing a lot of catch up. I did
read that the ASW platform, MH-53E Sea Dragon, was to be replaced
by the CH-60.

The MH-53E is for mine countermeasures (and fleet logistics), not ASW. It
may be replaced by the MH-60S, which used to be called the CH-60S. But they
are being less definite about this plan than they were a couple of years
ago, so I suspect the Sea Dragon may hold on for a while yet. There si
pretty good evidence the smaller helo simply can't do all of the MH-53's
missions (especially on the logistics side)


What gets me confused is that we have the SH-60R which are
rebuilt older H-60s. Now is the MH-60 going to be the primary
helo or is it the CH-60? I gather that the AF uses the
nomenclature is MH-60. The CH-60 is Navy.

The Navy is using M for multimission, but there are two different Navy
MH-60s. These will operate together, in different roles. Neither is
"primary."

MH-60R is the "old" SH-60R, replacing both the SH-60B and SH-60F for ASW,
ASUW, and various other missions. These will now be new builds, as this was
actually cheaper over theor total lifetime than rebuilds.

MH-60S is the "old" CH-60S. This is a new aircraft for VERTREP, SAR, SOF
support, and possibly airborne MCM. It replaces Navy H-46s, HH-60s, and
maybe MH-53s.

The way the services go about this is mind numbing!!!

Yes, sometimes. The Navy MH-60 designations are less than helpful, IMO.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 03:07:03 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

Now does the AF use the nomenclature of MH-60 as well?

As far as I know, they always have used either HH-60 or MH-60.


--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

In article ,
on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:04:05 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

With 18 aircraft per divisional attack battalion



IIRC the divisional BN are going to 24 airframes.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Chad Irby" wrote
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote
How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.
IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.

BFT (Blue-force tracking) is going to revolutionize IFF. Because it depends
on geo-location knowledge, that's tough to spoof or jam. Spoofing requires
breaking encryption in real-time and jamming has to be done continuously
into multiple aperatures.

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:04:05 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

With 18 aircraft per divisional attack battalion



IIRC the divisional BN are going to 24 airframes.

That is the new plan; wasn't aware of that until earlier today. ISTR the
current/old model was 18 per DIV ATK BN, and 21 per corps ATK BN. Of course,
IIRC the even *older* MTOE requirement for the DIV ATK BN was...24 aircraft.
So we went from 24 to 18 and back to 24...and somewhere in there the light
divisions and the 82nd ABN DIV lost their "real" attack helos altogether,
and picked up the AH-58 in their stead. Heck, one thing is for sure--you
can't accuse the aviators of being unwilling to change!

Brooks

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Rune Børsjø" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby
wrote:

Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a
couple
of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to
targeting

How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

Not a reliable, discrete (not desirable to tell *everyone* "here I am!",
is
it?), and *operational* one for ground units I haven't. Your nominee to
fill
those requirements would be...?


Do consider that IFF can be set up that it doesn't broadcast, but only
sends an encrypted, low-probability of interception response to an
encrypted query. That said, IFF, like any other electronic system, can
fail.

And how many such systems do we have on our *ground* platforms? And how
would say, and A-10 with no radar, query one?

Brooks