If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Minor corrections to below: (I was th OPS O at HC-5, the first Navy squadron
to transition from the H-46 Seaknight to the MH-60S Knighthawk) 1. Navy CH-60 is now the MH-60S (it is a marinized Blackhawk airframe) 2. SH-60R is now to be called the MH-60R (will replace the SH-60B and F) 3. Navy CH/UH/HH-46D is being retired, USMC CH-46E will be around for a while 4. H-46 is by no means a "heavy helo". Max gross weight for the MH-60 line is nearly the same. But, basic weight is less...thus payload weight is higher (although cubic capacity is much less) The MH-60S is a capable replacement for the H-46D, but the 46's tandem rotor configuration and large constant cross section cabin made it better for logistics. The 60 is much more of a multi-mission aircraft, with provisions for force protection, mine hunting, CSAR, etc... I still wish we would have waited for the S-92 or EH-101 (US-101 now). Either of these helos would have been a better replacement for a naval muti-mission helicopter. I asked Sikorsky about this back in 1996 when the idea of a Navy Blackhawk variant was first discussed... keeping the Blackhawk line open was a big concern. All the best, Roger "R. David Steele" wrote in message ... The money will go into the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook helicopter and UH-60 Black Hawk. What is interesting is that the Navy and AF are basically using variants of the Black Hawk (Navy CH-60 and SH-60R, AF MH-60). Like the JSF, we have become a one aircraft military. Looks like it just makes it easier to merge the AF into the Navy someday. 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. |What will the US use? | |There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter. | |How about licensed production of the Tigre!! | |I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not |without major upgrades... | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation THE NATION Army Cancels Comanche Helicopter By Esther Schrader Times Staff Writer February 24, 2004 WASHINGTON - In a sign the Pentagon is beginning to feel a budget squeeze, the Army on Monday canceled its Comanche helicopter program, bringing an end to the development of a craft that had been 21 years and $6.9 billion in the making. The termination, one of the biggest in Army history, contrasts with Pentagon budget battles of two years ago, when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered the Army's $11-billion Crusader artillery system canceled despite intense lobbying by senior Army officials to keep it going. This time, the Army itself decided to take the hit. The Army had little choice, senior officials said. The RAH-66 Comanche, an armed reconnaissance helicopter derided as a Cold War design with little utility in today's battles, was uniquely vulnerable to an argument repeatedly made by Rumsfeld: that bloated, big-ticket projects conceived during another era are putting Pentagon efforts to modernize at risk. By eliminating the Comanche, the Army frees up billions of dollars to buy more of the helicopters that are being used widely in Iraq and Afghanistan - UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook helicopters, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told reporters at the Pentagon. The money also would be spent to upgrade about 1,400 existing helicopters to improve protection against shoulder-launched missiles, as well as for speeding up work on unmanned aerial vehicles, officials said. "It's critical to the Army now - as we're at war - and for the future that the funds that were identified for the Comanche program in the fiscal year 2005 budget, as well as those funds in the future year's defense plan, remain with Army aviation," acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee said, standing beside Schoomaker at a Pentagon news conference. To date, nine Army helicopters have been shot down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 32 lives have been lost in those incidents, Army Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody told reporters. When the Comanche was conceived in 1983, the Army faced a far different threat. Army officials were eager for a lightweight, stealthy helicopter that would be able to move ahead of large tank formations in a conventional war to gather and distribute intelligence and attack the enemy. But since then, the Pentagon has developed any number of aircraft that meet those needs - Black Hawk and Apache helicopters to attack, and unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites for reconnaissance. Before Monday's cancellation, the Comanche program encountered one technical setback after another. It was overhauled six times as the cost per helicopter more than quadrupled, from $12.1 million per aircraft in the early days to $58.9 million two years ago. It was then that Rumsfeld cut the program in half. Schoomaker said Monday's decision will free up $14.6 billion that had been designated for Comanche research and procurement through 2011. The money will be used to buy 796 new versions of the Black Hawk, Apache and Chinook helicopters, as well as upgrading choppers already in use. "It's a big decision, but we know it's the right decision," Schoomaker said. He said the Army also plans to invest more heavily in unmanned aircraft, which have proved their worth in Afghanistan and Iraq. In terminating the Comanche program, the Army will have to ante up between $450 million and $680 million in cancellation fees to Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., the main contractors for the helicopter, Cody said. "With the Comanche, the Army has made a difficult choice," said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense think tank. "They have said, what we face now is a situation in which Comanche, a system designed to avoid radar detection, is not applicable to the problem we face in Afghanistan and Iraq. The principal problem we face there is from shoulder-fired missiles, and they are proliferating.. We need to get better at fighting and winning the war we're in right now." But with the Pentagon budget ballooning - the procurement budget alone is projected to rise 30% between now and 2009 - the federal deficit growing steadily larger, and the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan costing more than $4 billion each month, the military services are beginning to feel the pressure. "Like the other services, the Army is increasingly under pressure from the contradictions in the Bush budget," said Loren Thompson, a military aviation specialist at the Lexington Institute think tank. "Things are likely to get tight; the tightness usually hits first in the weapons counts." With the Pentagon budget up more than $80 billion since 2001, Republican lawmakers are beginning to take a closer look at supporting growing defense spending. Leading Democrats on Capitol Hill have been increasingly vocal on the issue. In a statement on Monday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the Comanche cancellation "reflects the difficulty that the services are facing with the cost of modernization requirements now coming to the fore." From the first days of the Bush administration, there has been talk of canceling a number of major military aviation projects, including the V-22 Osprey hybrid, developed by the Marine Corps, and the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor. But so far, the Comanche has been the only casualty. Sikorsky officials have said that several of the helicopters are in production at a Bridgeport, Conn., plant that now faces an uncertain future. The White House budget office recently asked the Pentagon to provide independent reviews of the Comanche and the F/A-22. "There's an opportunity here," said Krepinevich. "Transformation is not only a matter of what you buy, it's what you stop buying. "The question is, what are the other services doing? They have budget problems too. It's very difficult to see how they'll be able to afford everything that's on the books, especially if, as expected, there starts to be downward pressure on the defense budget. This could be a harbinger of things to come." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Curry wrote:
I was th OPS O at HC-5, the first Navy squadron to transition from the H-46 Seaknight to the MH-60S Knighthawk. I still wish we would have waited for the S-92 or EH-101 (US-101 now). Either of these helos would have been a better replacement for a naval muti-mission helicopter. I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as the next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside, which is the better *aircraft* for the mission? |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message news Roger Curry wrote: I was th OPS O at HC-5, the first Navy squadron to transition from the H-46 Seaknight to the MH-60S Knighthawk. I still wish we would have waited for the S-92 or EH-101 (US-101 now). Either of these helos would have been a better replacement for a naval muti-mission helicopter. I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as the next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside, which is the better *aircraft* for the mission? Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. The 101 has some possible advantages over the S-92 in a tactical role, but as a VIP transport there would not be much justification of one over the other *except* for political considerations. IMO the chance that we will see a non-US designed helo selected for use by HMX-1 is slim-to-none; OTOH, the 101 stands at *least* an even chance of getting the USAF rescue helo contract that we can expect to be offered up for competition in the near term. Brooks |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:15:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message news I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as the next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside, which is the better *aircraft* for the mission? Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. The 101 has some possible advantages over the S-92 in a tactical role, but as a VIP transport there would not be much justification of one over the other *except* for political considerations. IMO the chance that we will see a non-US designed helo selected for use by HMX-1 is slim-to-none; OTOH, the 101 stands at *least* an even chance of getting the USAF rescue helo contract that we can expect to be offered up for competition in the near term. IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is rather more proven. On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day. I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh -101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:15:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message news I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as the next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside, which is the better *aircraft* for the mission? Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. The 101 has some possible advantages over the S-92 in a tactical role, but as a VIP transport there would not be much justification of one over the other *except* for political considerations. IMO the chance that we will see a non-US designed helo selected for use by HMX-1 is slim-to-none; OTOH, the 101 stands at *least* an even chance of getting the USAF rescue helo contract that we can expect to be offered up for competition in the near term. IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is rather more proven. The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue. On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day. I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh -101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up. I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92. OTOH, the S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101 from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being such a decidedly better platform than the S-92. Brooks --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92. OTOH, the S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101 from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being such a decidedly better platform than the S-92. I remember a few years back being startled like hell by an EH-101 flying fairly low and slow (lower than most of the Blackhawks that transit the area) over the I-395/King Street interchange just south of the Pentagon. At the time, I think I'd only seen one or two pictures of the beast, and it sure wasn't an everyday sight to see any helo that low, let alone something that unusual. Still wasn't as cool as seeing a B2 Spirit drifting over DC Metro on Armed Forces Day, though. AgustaWestland's got photos in its gallery from that visit. http://www.agustawestlandinc.com/gallery.html |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "Peter Kemp" wrote in message .. . IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is rather more proven. The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue. Fair enough, but I'd have thought for the President you'd want a rather more proven airframe. IIRC these are not *any* government orders for the H-92 yet, although that's mainly due to a lack of contracts to bid for (except a few European ones). Be interesting to see how the H-92 versus EH101 contest in Canada ends up. The EH should have the advantage after the Cormorant order, but who knows. On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day. I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh -101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up. I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92. Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and 150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be added I'd say that's a significant difference. OTOH, the S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101 from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being such a decidedly better platform than the S-92. Not really, because as you say the S-92 isn't being bid as it's too large, the same reason the EH101 was scrubbed (I was suprised the Merlin even made the short list). So at most it says something about bidding a large helicopter in a medium copter contest. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Peter Kemp" wrote in message .. . IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is rather more proven. The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue. Fair enough, but I'd have thought for the President you'd want a rather more proven airframe. IIRC these are not *any* government orders for the H-92 yet, although that's mainly due to a lack of contracts to bid for (except a few European ones). Be interesting to see how the H-92 versus EH101 contest in Canada ends up. The EH should have the advantage after the Cormorant order, but who knows. On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day. I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh -101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up. I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92. Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and 150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be added I'd say that's a significant difference. Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role (and as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22 for the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor. Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot operations. OTOH, the S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101 from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being such a decidedly better platform than the S-92. Not really, because as you say the S-92 isn't being bid as it's too large, the same reason the EH101 was scrubbed (I was suprised the Merlin even made the short list). So at most it says something about bidding a large helicopter in a medium copter contest. Well, the NH90, which remains in the running, is a bit larger than the UH-60M, too. Brooks --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Peter Kemp" wrote in message .. . IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is rather more proven. The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue. The commonality of the S-92 with the H-60 appears to be greatly exaggerated. It may have started out that way, but the numerous changes since have really made it a new helo with some concepts borrowed from the H-60. However, by the time they could get into service, I imagine the commercial users will have put enough hours on it to eliminate any major worries in that area. But Sikorsky's just making the first commercial delivery now, so ordering anytime soon would still be taking a bit of a risk. snip Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and 150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be added I'd say that's a significant difference. Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role (and as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22 for the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor. Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot operations. snip AvLeak mantioned a month or two ago that the proposed "VH-92" was being given a power boost to bring its hot/high performance into line with the "US-101." I don't remember the details (it was a more powerful version of the CT-7), but the Sikorsky person they were talking to may have said it would exceed the US-101's hot/high performance. Guy |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Kevin Brooks wrote: "Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Peter Kemp" wrote in message .. . IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is rather more proven. The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue. The commonality of the S-92 with the H-60 appears to be greatly exaggerated. It may have started out that way, but the numerous changes since have really made it a new helo with some concepts borrowed from the H-60. However, by the time they could get into service, I imagine the commercial users will have put enough hours on it to eliminate any major worries in that area. But Sikorsky's just making the first commercial delivery now, so ordering anytime soon would still be taking a bit of a risk. I am not sure how much risk you are talking about; Sikorsky is ballyhooing the fact that the S-92 is the first and only helo to have so far been certified under the FAA Part 29 requirements. It has been flying since 1998, apparently without major mishap, a total of five prototypes logging hours (about 2500 to date) over the years since then. The critter even won the Collier Trophy year before last. They already have over 20 firm sales, some seventeen options, and a handfull of others have made deposits towards future purchase. based upon all of that, this appears to be a pretty low-risk program. As to commonality with the S-70/UH-60 family, it shares the same rotor system as the UH-60M (albeit the latter has blades a foot shorter); as one source noted, the "engines and dynamic components are basically those of the Blackhawk family". snip Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and 150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be added I'd say that's a significant difference. Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role (and as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22 for the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor. Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot operations. snip AvLeak mantioned a month or two ago that the proposed "VH-92" was being given a power boost to bring its hot/high performance into line with the "US-101." I don't remember the details (it was a more powerful version of the CT-7), but the Sikorsky person they were talking to may have said it would exceed the US-101's hot/high performance. Very possible. From what I have read the S-92, while being certified at lower payload capacity than the EH-101, has actually flown (in and out of ground effect) at about the same maximum gross weight as the EH-101 advertises. Brooks Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SWR meter Alternatives | c hinds | Home Built | 1 | June 2nd 04 07:39 PM |