CSAR-X

[pirate]

Boeing press release

http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2006/q4/061109f_nr.html

[craino21]

Originally posted by Jollygreen:

over 170 Saves in OEF since January.

Almost 170 since the beginning of August... we've been pretty busy

[DeHavilland]

I saw a demonstration a British -47 put on last summer at an airshow in England. While granted he was probably way under MTOGW, he put on the most impressive display of any FW or RW acft at the show. I used to be RW and was most impressed with what he was able to make that big bird do. I believe the users will end up finding it is a good platform. One downside will be having to dismantle it for a C5 movement.

[Guest ShortThrow]

Chinooks To the Rescue

Boeing's HH-47 Chinook has won the $10-billion CSAR-X contest to provide 141 Combat Search and Rescue choppers to the Air Force, beating out the Lockheed Martin US.101 and the Sikorsky H-92. The new birds will replace around 100 decrepit Sikorsky HH-60G Pavehawks that are too small, too flimsy and underpowered. As Boeing puts it in a press release,

The tandem rotor, heavy-lift, high-altitude HH-47 is based on the CH/MH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, with performance capabilities that have been widely demonstrated in the ongoing global war on terrorism and in numerous U.S. and international humanitarian relief operations.

Damn straight. When the Pavehawk was procured, C-SAR was all about nabbing downed fighter pilots from Soviet-held Germany -- a short-range mission in a cool climate requiring minimal lifting capability. These days C-SAR is about much more: reinforcing outnumbered ground troops on some distant mountaintop, spiriting noncombatants away from a remote warzone and plucking hurricane survivors off rooftops. That takes speed, range and powerful engines, things the Chinook has in spades.

The award comes hot on the heels of a search-and-rescue shuffle that saw the Pave Hawks and their crews get bumped from the regular Air Force to Special Operations Command then back. It was SOC that favored the HH-47, and this preference apparently stuck despite the reshuffle.

The decision means that the 40-year-old Chinook design will remain in production until around 2020 at least. In addition to the new Air Force models, the Army is buying 400 new CH-47Fs and Special Forces MH-47Gs ... and international customers are starting to line up too.

[ 10. November 2006, 14:00: Message edited by: Tertle ]

[craino21]

The new office... or at least the MH-47G

[Guest croftfam]

Okay, now that's a cockpit that's gonna make flying easy!

[rescue]

I sure hope it's all NVG compatible!!! Oh yeah, I can only imagine that brownouts (and whiteouts) are going to be a bit more problematic with all the downwash. I'm glad I won't be riding the hoist either!

[Guest croftfam]

The -47 doesn't really brownout.

[TacAirCoug]

Thread Revival for interesting development:

GAO overturns HH-47 selection by Air Force

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Feb 26, 2007 14:36:08 EST

The Air Force’s selection of the Boeing HH-47 helicopter as it next combat search and rescue helicopter was overturned by the Government Accountability Office on Monday.

The GAO sustained the protests by Sikorsky Aircraft Company and Lockheed Martin on the basis that the Air Force’s actual evaluation of the aircraft’s long-term service costs was inconsistent with the required approach presented in the solicitation provided to the firms.

Sikorsky has pushed its S-92 helicopter while Lockheed offered the US101.

The contract with Boeing to build about 141 helicopters was worth $15 billion.

The federal watchdog agency recommended that the Air Force amend the request it made to aircraft builders to reflect its intent with respect to the evaluation aircraft’s long-term maintenance and other service life costs, reopen discussions with the contractors and then request revised proposals.

As of early Monday afternoon, the Air Force hadn’t issued a statement on what its next step will be.

Boeing is confident the HH-47 will win a second round, if that is what Air Force decides to do, according to a company representative.

“We still believe the HH-47 is the most capable platform for the CSAR mission and provides the best value to the Air Force in meeting this critical requirement,” said Boeing spokesman Joseph LaMarca.

A spokesman for Lockheed, Greg Caires, said his company was pleased with the GAO’s decision.

“We are confident that, when fairly evaluated on its demonstrated capabilities, the US101 helicopter will be selected as the best choice and best value to satisfy the Air Force’s CSAR-X requirement,” Caires said.

Source

[craino21]

Damn it... this just means it's going to be an additional year (at least) before we replace the -60s... the whole point of this was to get something close to off the shelf so that we could field it quickly, by the time all this is over we probably could have gotten a brand new helicopter...

[Guest Skids Down]

Damn it... this just means it's going to be an additional year (at least) before we replace the -60s... the whole point of this was to get something close to off the shelf so that we could field it quickly, by the time all this is over we probably could have gotten a brand new helicopter...

That blows... Will be interesting to see what happens in round two. Maybe there's a courageous enough politician out there that will raise the WTF flag on the recent rash of retarded airframe procurements.

[Eeyore]

Well, round two has begun. The political follies abound. The AF must get this one correct this time. The HH-47 is a nice large airframe for CSAR but the design is 40 yr old technology. So selecting it over new designed S-92/US 101 was odd. I believe CSAR is facing a dilemna of size and internal capability for the PJs. Sure it is nice to carry more equipment and have room to work but what about speed. I would think with some lessons learned speed is life and having it helps negate the foe. Recent news reports from Iraq suggest small arms and RPGs are doing the damage. I'd wager a year or longer in review of all weapons systems based on recent losses. A self inflicted gunshot for the AF once again.

[dmeg130]

The HH-47 is a nice large airframe for CSAR but the design is 40 yr old technology.

I don't buy it. That's like saying that the C-130J is 50 yr old technology. Internal room was a big factor, yes, but so was power/high-alt capability and the ability to meet the procurement timeline. I think that both the 92 and 101 are very capable airframes as well, but neither has had a probe mod as far as I know.

Speed may be life, but even the Apaches are getting whomped on, and everybody's got to hover sometime. Is there really a big difference between a 150kt target and a 200kt target? Surely you're not suggessting the Osprey as the solution?

In this case, the speed we need is to replace the -60 as soon as possible.

[Guest PilotKD]

This whole can of worms is a matter of semantics and unfortunately Lockheed and Sikorsky took advantage of it and called the Air Force on it. Technically, the Air Force doesn't have to go with the GAO's recommendations, although it's unlikely they will blow them off. It'd be nice to see the AF tell Lockheed and Sikorsky to go scratch and deal with their loss. If the Air Force needs something soon, this is going to set them back at least 6 months, not including the 3 months of protesting they've already done. These protests are very common between corporations and it's not the first time Lockheed and Boeing have been involved in a protest. However, I believe the last time Lockheed protested something Boeing was awarded, the GAO threw it out.

[Anon Ymous]

heard a rumor that they took the -47 out of the CSAR-X slot. I can't remember why but if it's true it looks like the contract is up for bid again. Anybody hear the same?

[TacAirCoug]

heard a rumor that they took the -47 out of the CSAR-X slot. I can't remember why but if it's true it looks like the contract is up for bid again. Anybody hear the same?

Nope.

Air Force will not rebid CSAR-X contract

By Kimberly Hefling - Associated Press

Posted : Tuesday Mar 20, 2007 21:42:36 EDT

WASHINGTON — The Air Force said Tuesday that it would not reopen a $15 billion military helicopter contract awarded to Boeing Co. but will continue to talk to two rival companies that contested the contract.

An Air Force spokesman said Tuesday night, however, that the discussions would not be opened to companies beyond Boeing and the two other companies, Lockheed Martin Corp. and Sikorsky Aircraft... More

Edit: Or maybe they will...

Air Force To Resolicit Bids On CSAR-X, Wynne Says

By Michael Bruno/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

The U.S. Air Force intends to resolicit bids from Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky Aircraft and Boeing in the recent competition to replace the current Air Force fleet of combat, search and rescue (CSAR-X) helicopters, but the service is not looking to reopen the competition to new bidders, Secretary Michael Wynne told reporters March 20.

Wynne, speaking after testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also said the Air Force will look to the Government Accountability Office to be its "quality agent" in the competition.

GAO auditors are working on commentary to numerous bid protest concerns, which are expected by mid-June, according to Wynne. The Air Force hopes it beat that deadline, and will try to be ready to distribute new solicitation information to CSAR-X vendors soon thereafter.

Air Force leaders were "narrowly" focused on fixing one judging issue - lifecycle costs - which contributed to its disputed decision to buy Boeing Chinooks for search and rescue missions, as the GAO first ruled March 7.

Boeing won the $10 billion-$15 billion contract to build more than 140 CSAR-Xs to replace the aging CSAR helicopter fleet. The GAO sustained the protests of Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky. Source

Make up your mind Wynne!

[Eeyore]

Ah the joys of politics!!! I wonder who is on the payroll??

[Squatch]

Kilo H-53 anyone ??

[Guest Curt22]

Wil this mean eventual replacement of the Pavehawks in the Guard/Reserve inventory as well?

Yes...The CSAR-X program of record will replace ALL HH-60G acft, including Guard/Res acft. In fact...in order to get out of the current Low Density - High Demand status...141 CSAR-X acft will be purchased (118 PAA) to replace the 101 HH-60G (83 PAA). This will mean in increase of force structure for the AD units and larger (5 ship) UTC packages for all CSAR helo operators.

[Guest Curt22]

Nope.

Edit: Or maybe they will...

Make up your mind Wynne!

The SPO has issued another RFP to address the one...and only ONE protest issue upheld by the GAO (Life Cycle Cost).

All three contenders are still in the game, so the question will be is the cost of ownership difference between platforms significantly different for the operational capability they provide?

In the end, it doesn't really matter if "Vendor A" is a billion dollars cheaper than "Vendor B" if it doesn't meet the user requriements of range, payload, hover performance at OGE, self defense etc... If you can't get to and from the target area safely...you didn't save a billion dollars, you wasted several billion dollars buying something that cannot do the job you bought it for in the first place.

[Eeyore]

Well two chinooks down in afghanistan in two days. Hats off to the crews. Now when is the AF going to wake the f... up? I still believe the-47 is still old and too large a target. Oh, I forgot that the AF is run by managers not Leaders. One wonders what does it take for common sense to prevail.

[Wildo67]

Kilo H-53 anyone ??

Hell, Yeah.

[dmeg130]

I still believe the-47 is still old and too large a target.

It ain't just the -47, man. Can the S-92 or US-101 do any better? BTW, calling the SOAR and HH-47s "old" is like calling the C-130J "old".

Incidents involving U.S. helicopters in Iraq in 2007:

- April 5: A helicopter carrying nine people went down south of Baghdad, wounding four. An Iraqi official said the chopper was a Black Hawk and militants in the area were using an anti-aircraft heavy machine gun.

- March 1: An OH-58 Kiowa made a hard landing near Kirkuk, wounding two pilots. An initial investigation blamed mechanical failure rather than hostile fire.

- Feb. 21: A Black Hawk went down north of Baghdad amid small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. All members aboard were safely evacuated.

- Feb. 7: A Marine CH-46 Sea Knight was shot down by insurgents in a Sunni-dominated area in Anbar province, killing all seven people on board.

- Feb. 2: An AH-64 Apache crashed in a hail of gunfire north of Baghdad, killing two crew members. The military said it was likely the aircraft had been shot down.

- Jan. 31: A civilian helicopter owned by the private security company Blackwater USA went down south of Baghdad. The military began an investigation after The New York Times reported that insurgents had brought it down with ground fire.

- Jan. 28: An AH-64 Apache went down during heavy fighting near Najaf, south of Baghdad, killing the two crew members.

- Jan. 23: An OH-6A observation helicopter owned by Blackwater USA crashed in Baghdad in heavy gunfire, killing four civilian contractors. A fifth contractor in a second helicopter died of gunshot wounds.

- Jan. 20: A Black Hawk crashed in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, killing 12 soldiers aboard. The military said it might have been shot down by a shoulder-fired weapon, although their investigation was continuing.

[Guest Curt22]

Well two chinooks down in afghanistan in two days. Hats off to the crews. Now when is the AF going to wake the f... up? I still believe the-47 is still old and too large a target. Oh, I forgot that the AF is run by managers not Leaders. One wonders what does it take for common sense to prevail.

I haven't heard confirmation of the recent H-47 loses were caused by ground fire, but assuming this is true...the number of H-47's lost to date in the War on Terror are still significantly lighter than the other "smaller, newer" machines some seem to think would survive better.

As for RPG's...NO helicopter holds a requirement for successful disengagement from RPG attacks, nor do any require sustaining such an impact w/ any probability of survival... Why not??? Cause no helo's can afford the weight penalty for the armor needed and as slow as ALL helo's are...there is no confidence that any could avoid an RPG in the terminal area, let alone the more lethal MANPAD's (We all saw Blackhawk Down).

A "Leader" should analyze and seek to reduce risk as does a "Manager"...so here are some facts addressing the impact size has made in survivability. The highest numbers of acft lost in Iraq have been sustained by the SMALLEST most maneuverable acft in the inventory. 11 of the 24 AH-64 lost have been shot down (46%)... 9 of 19 Blackhawks lost have been shot down (nearly 50%), 7 of 19 OH-58D's lost have been shot down (37%) and 1 of 5 H-47's shot down (20%).

If the H-47 is at greater risk of being shot down...why are losses far greater for smaller and more maneuverable helo's? Answer: Because the theory that bigger is greater risk is just an antidotal assumption and not supported by the facts on the battle field.

[stract]

sorry, but look at the missions of those airframes. The littler A/C are the most offensive platforms, going into the hottest areas, so of course they're getting shot down more! Although the HH-47 will never be an offensive platform, it will be used going into higher-threat areas and will be a big friggin target.

**edit** that should be "big friggin, least maneuverable of the 3 options, target" **edit**

Edited June 3, 2007 by stract