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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Commanche alternatives?
"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. We have to have a replacement for the CH-47 now? One wonders what they are doing with that whole CH-47F program... Brooks snip |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
R. David Steele wrote:
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. Makes sense, really. Why reinvent dynamic systems for all these different roles that happen to be in the same basic weight class? Looks like it just makes it easier to merge the AF into the Navy someday. You're not serious, are you? 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. CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47. (they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's about it.) The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty clear: the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably an S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). This is already operational and by most accounts it works rather well for the VERTREP job. The Navy/Marine counterpart to the CH-47 is actually the CH-53, which I believe is getting a SLEP to run another couple of decades. So is the CH-47. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aft/ch-53x.htm http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch-47f-ich.htm Long term replacement plans are pretty hazy, as one might expect for a program (or programs) that won't deliver hardware for at least a decade, if not two. -- 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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Schoene wrote:
R. David Steele wrote: snip 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. CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47. (they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's about it.) The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty clear: the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably an S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic airframe. And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is battling Henry J. Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless? Guy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Guy,
And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is battling Henry J. Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless? You are not alone. -- Mike Kanze "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles (430 B.C.) "Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Thomas Schoene wrote: R. David Steele wrote: snip 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. CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47. (they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's about it.) The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty clear: the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably an S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic airframe. And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is battling Henry J. Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless? Guy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Thomas Schoene wrote: The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic airframe. I shouldn't like to argue, but a lot of Navy webpages, including sites like HC-8 homepage, say the Navy flies CH-46Ds. http://www.navy.mil/homepages/hc8/ Comparatively few mention the UH-46 designation. OTOH, there are a lot of mentions these days that simply say H-46; I think they gave up trying to keep the different designations straight. -- 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) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Schoene wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote: Thomas Schoene wrote: The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic airframe. I shouldn't like to argue, but a lot of Navy webpages, including sites like HC-8 homepage, say the Navy flies CH-46Ds. http://www.navy.mil/homepages/hc8/ So they do. Comparatively few mention the UH-46 designation. OTOH, there are a lot of mentions these days that simply say H-46; I think they gave up trying to keep the different designations straight. You may be right;-) Guy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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"? -HJC |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , 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"? Why ever would they care? It's not a jet. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
SWR meter Alternatives | c hinds | Home Built | 1 | June 2nd 04 07:39 PM |
Commanche alternatives? | John Cook | Military Aviation | 99 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |