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

R. David Steele wrote:

We have to have a replacement for the CH-47 now? One wonders what
they are doing with that whole CH-47F program...

It is a bit long in the tooth. Look at how the Navy dropped its
sister, the CH-46.

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

--
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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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/