A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Rotorcraft
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Presidential Helicopter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 25th 05, 02:47 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry, the Comanche mess was the Army's fault. They never funded it
fully, never froze the requirement, and allowed the thing to consume
the entire aviation budget.

Workfare for the primes? Who's fault was that? (See what I mean about
Weldon?) Boeing and Sikorsky never fought the Army to keep the thing on
a low burner. The Army insisted it needed the Comanche up to shortly
before the cancellation.

Can you blame the guys on the program for living in the Twilight Zone?
By all accounts the Comanche air vehicles flew as advertised. The
program just never had the money to integrate the air vehicle with the
all-important MEP. Waiting to cancel the thing just when the factory
was starting up was the Army's doing.

US101 and VH-92 off-the-shelf? Trouble is, all that is left is NOT
stuffing in the special avionics, EMI protection, etc. They so
gold-plated the requirement that both aircraft had to grow to carry all
the people and systems.

Navy assistant secretary White said both aircraft needed rotor and
drivetrain improvements to meet VXX objective requirements. That means
the EH101 gets a new rotor system, a new transmission and probably FBW
controls paid for by the US taxpayer. Fixes the Italians and the Brits
needed but couldn't afford will get done on our dime. That version then
gets marketed out of Italy (and the US) to meet future requirements.

China on the S-92? They saw a potentially big market, but I think the
PRC is more risk then reward.

HW

  #22  
Old March 25th 05, 04:34 PM
CTR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But in the case of the US101 and VH92, both
aircraft are already supposedly developed

Note the emphasis I placed on "supposedly". The improvements you spoke
of have been in the works for both aircraft for years. They were added
by each company to their proposals to offer the best possible
performance. Based on what I have read, the 101 improvements are much
further along than the S-92. This was probably a factor in the
selection.

All DOD aircraft programs in my experience are over sold, under funded
and unrealistically scheduled. The Commanche if anything was better
off than most.

Look at the A-12. This Navy replacement for the A-6 was scheduled to
go from contract award to first flight of a "Production" aircraft in
less than 42 months! When it was cancelled three airfcraft were 10
months away from completion. It was the first major program to die
from fallout of the demise of the USSR. The Commanche just took
longer.

The Navy learned its lesson after the A-12 cancelation, and made sure
that the F-18E/F requirements were defined, no technology developement
was required and schedule was realistic. If they had not, there would
currently be a lot of aircraft carriers without any attack capability.

The Army is now doing the same with the ARH and LUH programs. They
cannot afford to make another mistake like the Commanche program
management did. OH-58's attrition in the Iraq and Afganistan won't
allow it. Advanced UAVs capable of performing the required missions
are a decade away at least. I predict who ever wins the ARH program,
it will be sucessful. We cannot afford it not to be.

I respect your support of Sikorsky. But if it had been a competion
between the V-22 and a US101 final assembled by Sikorsky, would you
still feel the same way?

  #23  
Old March 25th 05, 07:23 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yep, probably. The EH101 is a bad investment on multiple fronts, and
somehow the rules of the game were twisted to arrive at this decision.
The EH101 was grounded during the competition due to a material related
mishap, and the Navy just blew past that like it was no big deal.
Something ain't right here.

My original point was the EH101 was desgined and certificated under
rules written in 1978. That means it lacks the longitudinal crash
strength built into a helicopter designed and built today under later
certification standards. Strengthening the US101 cabin to modern
crashworthiness standards will add cost, risk, and weight. Likewise,
matching the birdstrike, turbine burst, and lightning protection of a
modern aircraft will require redesign - again cost and risk. With the
US101, Presidents for the next 30 years will continue to ride above
aircraft fuel cells - again, if you had your druthers in a modern
helicopter, you'd isolate the fuel system from the passenger cabin.
Again, if you're looking for the safest aircraft to carry the
President, something ain't right here.

Add to that risk the whole question of outsourcing VH work offshore.
Presidential helo work was always subject to the highest security
requirements and performed by cleared US citizens. Now the Navy is
willing to piece out big chunks of the thing to Italy and the UK like
it's no big deal.

The EH101 has three engines 'cause it needs 'em. That means higher
operating and support costs for the life of the aircraft. Is this the
best value for the taxpayers?

I suspect after delays and overruns, the US101 will probably serve fine
in the meticulous maintenance environment of HMX-1. That doesn't mean
it was a smart buy. And if there's an accident, it may be a very
stupid one.

My Comanche comments were based on the fact that the Army validated,
re-validated, and re-re-validated the requirement for more than a
decade after the end of the Cold War. The failure was in the
procurement system, not in the people who built the helicopter. The Air
Force had the bucks to build four and fly four ATF prototypes to see
what it wanted (and they may have screwed that up too.). The Army had
to stop flying the one Comanche it had after 300 hours 'cause the
program ran out of money. Go figure.

Let's see if ARH stays on target.

HW

  #24  
Old April 1st 05, 06:04 PM
~R
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Helowriter wrote:
Sorry, the Comanche mess was the Army's fault. They never funded it
fully, never froze the requirement, and allowed the thing to consume
the entire aviation budget.

Agreed....a creeping goal line for years doesn't help!


  #25  
Old April 2nd 05, 04:08 AM
CTR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What killed the Comanche was its mission disapeared. Stealth
technology does not protect against primitive line of site weapons.
Even if the spec had been frozen five years ago and the aircraft had
been fielded, it's final flyaway cost would have made it's use
impractical in the war on terror. Even the future of the F-35 is now
questionable.

CTR

  #26  
Old April 2nd 05, 04:08 AM
CTR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What killed the Comanche was its mission disapeared. Stealth
technology does not protect against primitive line of site weapons.
Even if the spec had been frozen five years ago and the aircraft had
been fielded, it's final flyaway cost would have made it's use
impractical in the war on terror. Even the future of the F-35 is now
questionable.

CTR

  #27  
Old April 2nd 05, 04:08 AM
CTR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What killed the Comanche was its mission disapeared. Stealth
technology does not protect against primitive line of site weapons.
Even if the spec had been frozen five years ago and the aircraft had
been fielded, it's final flyaway cost would have made it's use
impractical in the war on terror. Even the future of the F-35 is now
questionable.

CTR

  #28  
Old April 3rd 05, 04:13 PM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The mission - armed reconaissance - is still there.

The enemy right now is an insurgency with handheld weapons. Don't
assume all future wars will throw Army Aviation against enemies armed
only with MANPADS and RPGs.

Apaches were closed out of Kosovo in part by radar-directed threats,
and RF MANPADS in the future are not out of the question. A decade
from now, helicopters may face integrated air defenses -- probably not
the massed Soviet threat, but mobile RF and IR threats that justify
signature reduction.

The Comanche flyaway cost is another story - and that's a program
management failure. Stretching development while reducing numbers
increases unit price. That's where freezing a requirement and starting
a line helps.

The Army could have relaxed its LO requirements on the Comanche and
saved a bit. But that very highly integrated Mission Equipment Package
meant you didn't save much by just leaving things off. That in itself
may be a real lesson for future systems designers.

All of this brings us back to the original topic - the Presidential
Helicopter. What's so nutty about this is that Lockheed Martin didn't
win with the best Mission Equipment Package. The Navy just chose the
biggest box for whatever the systems will be. In the process, they
ignored 10+ years of helicopter safety advances. Given the mission,
that is truly nuts.

HW

  #29  
Old April 3rd 05, 09:58 PM
CTR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

HW,

Maybe we should start a new topic heading.

Why can't the mission of armed reconaissance be performed by a UAV?
The Army killed DARPA's UCAR, but their concept is the future. Even if
the Brass refuses to accept it. I agree the all the technology is not
there currenty, but in 10+ years...

Take care,

CTR

  #30  
Old April 4th 05, 03:31 AM
Helowriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Okay, new topic. Armed reconaissance.

HW

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flying high: Lockheed wins presidential helicopter contract [email protected] Naval Aviation 11 February 8th 05 03:20 PM
Flying high: Lockheed wins presidential helicopter contract [email protected] Rotorcraft 0 January 30th 05 04:48 AM
Lockheed wins Presidential helicopter contract Tiger Naval Aviation 0 January 29th 05 06:24 AM
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot Badwater Bill Home Built 6 February 27th 04 10:11 AM
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot Badwater Bill Rotorcraft 0 February 25th 04 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.