CSAR-X

[Eeyore]

Well, yes SHOOTING someone or multiple someones though makes one feel good. Solves little. I'd say the problem does belong to the CSAF. He is the one whom the AirStaff work directly for. He needs to clean house. This why we need LEADERS not mere entrenched managers. Again, I'd wager that the AirStaff pushed the cutting of mod funding to keep the F-22 or other projects viable. It will be sad day when the threats become so aggressive that CSAR will not be able to rescue the down aviator. Then things will change. Until that day those in the field must apply constant pressure to get funding restored for mods. Additionally, thinking outside the box MUST occur on new selection of CSAR-X. What is CSAR mission?? Rescue? Infil/Exfil of overt/covert operators?? HLS?

[busdriver]

It's going to be increasing hard to justify spending money on an asset that primarily sits alert for fighter guys. I suspect bringing the Army into discussions about CSAR-X has something to do with this.

[Guest Curt22]

Additionally, thinking outside the box MUST occur on new selection of CSAR-X. What is CSAR mission?? Rescue? Infil/Exfil of overt/covert operators?? HLS?

Thinking outside the box in the next source selection? I appreciate your sentiment, and the time for this is during the requirements development phase. I think the CSAR folks did a fine job thinking outside the box for the new acft...gone are the days of "2 patients", short range, marginal power and non-integrated acft systems and avionics.

This is where the creative process must occur because creative thinking is not permitted once source selection begins.

This is a very simple process...All you have to do is review the Govt's list of requirements against a vendor's proposed method of meeting your requirements...not against other vendors, not against previous legacy platforms, and not against ones own "opinions"...but against the established requirements approved by the Air and Joint Staff.

"Creative Thinking" in this process could (would) be construed by the losing vendors as "moving the goal posts" or not clearly defining ones requirements in the first place guaranteeing them a successful point to protest...since this is EXACTLY what GAO found when it upheld the protest point on life cycle cost.

[Eeyore]

Curt22

Valid points. You mentioned the Air Staff crafted rquirements. This group of senior officers I feel can not think outside the box. They believe that they know what is best may not be the case. They feel they know the political winds and craft requirements to meet political goals (new POTUS helo). IMHO. The competition between contractors is not truely competition if not starting from the drawing board. Each contractor is trying to sell a product based on existing designs. I feel true competition should be from the drawing board. A case in point is the AF's the latest fighter. Boeing and Lockheed designed totally new aircraft and then competed against each other in a fly off. The Air Staff gave them the requirements but allowed each contractor to pursue different approaches. Why then did the Air Force and Air Staff not do the same for CSAR-X??

[Guest Curt22]

Curt22

Valid points. You mentioned the Air Staff crafted rquirements. This group of senior officers I feel can not think outside the box. They believe that they know what is best may not be the case. They feel they know the political winds and craft requirements to meet political goals (new POTUS helo). IMHO. The competition between contractors is not truely competition if not starting from the drawing board. Each contractor is trying to sell a product based on existing designs. I feel true competition should be from the drawing board. A case in point is the AF's the latest fighter. Boeing and Lockheed designed totally new aircraft and then competed against each other in a fly off. The Air Staff gave them the requirements but allowed each contractor to pursue different approaches. Why then did the Air Force and Air Staff not do the same for CSAR-X??

Eeyore,

Perhaps I misspoke, I didn't mean to imply the Air Staff authored the CSAR-X requirements, (they did not), but they and the JROC are required to approve the requirements coming up from the operational command.

That said, I agree that had the USAF been able to design an acft for the purpose of CSAR they would not have to accept a hand-me-down machine already in service.

Why didn't the USAF take this approach? It's all about TIME (and RDT&E cost). The program was directed (by the Air Staff) NOT to be a developmental program, and buying of the shelf could shave years of the acquisition schedule. (F-22 and V-22 have been 20 year developmental programs and USAF didn't want to suffer this long w/ the H-60's)

Since the USAF never had the chance to design a helicopter from the drawing board...I can't imagine what such a machine might look like, but its fun to think about...Lazy-Boy recliners in the back...Expresso machine, Frozen Concoction Maker...oh yeah...a hoist, guns and stuff like that too!

[Eeyore]

Curt22,

Perhaps I was the one who misspoke regarding the Air Staff. I find it ironic that the IOC for CSAR-X is 2014 or later. I would think it would not take 20 years to develop a new helicopter. I was involved with the evolution of the 55th SOS Eglin Blackhawks to the Pavehawks. This evolution was to meet changing mission requirements and in doing so we witnessed the oil canning of skin above the FE window with probe install, cracking of both windows frames with minigun mounts, the overstressing caused by external hoist mount, etc. This being said, it would have been nice to have a mission specific design. So does the Air Staff and JROC requirements meet the need? My last experience with both involved Air Force Blue Force Tracking and both neither could agree to disagree.

As for future necessary equipment, Air Conditioning is a must. I'm now spoiled flying EMS with A/C.

EE

[stract]

well at least there's some good info about sustaining our current fleet:

Likewise, in research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) budget lines, Congress will slice the Air Force's delayed Combat Search and Rescue replacement (CSAR-X) helicopter program by $178 million due to a delay in the contract award. The bill also transfers $99 million from CSAR-X to the HH-60 combat search and rescue helicopters for needed upgrades, since the CSAR-X program has been delayed by repeated industry protests (DAILY, Oct. 22).

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...channel=defense

[Guest JorryFright21]

well at least there's some good info about sustaining our current fleet:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...channel=defense

2

[Guest Curt22]

well at least there's some good info about sustaining our current fleet:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...channel=defense

Yahoo...A round of 308 beams for all on the (Air Staff) house...!

[stract]

eh, MX can just keep throwing more metal up there to beef up those pesky 308 beam cracks...

we can use the $$ for things like a better AHHS, a 3rd KY-58, a color HDD (supposedly the Reserves are testing that one right now), or even the 701D upgrade would be nice, maybe a wide-chord blade or two. Or maybe SADL, or the short-barrel .50 cal.

[stract]

and there was much rejoicing in the CSAR community....

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...rement%20Change

"Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) program officials improperly weakened one of the most important requirements in a major search and rescue helicopter contract in order to allow Boeing to compete," POGO says in its report, "Rescue at Risk: Crucial Helicopter Requirement Weakened," scheduled for release Nov. 15. "In doing so, they subverted the safety of service members to the parochial interests of the Pentagon and Boeing."

In 2002, ACC "explicitly ruled out Boeing's Chinook," stating that it is a heavy-lift helicopter and "the very large size is beyond the needs of the mission area," according to POGO.

way to go AFSOC. Glad we're back in ACC now, and here's hoping the IG investigation comes to fruition.

I'm perfectly willing to fly the HH-60 a little while longer as long as it gets us the right platform for our mission in the end (which is NOT the shithook).

[busdriver]

The article and the POGO's research are hardly new or much more than speculation.

Ruling out the Chinook back in 02 was part of the analysis of alternatives, not the request for proposal.

[dmeg130]

First, "AFSOC" CSAR-X programmers were never "SOCOM" guys, they weere -60 guys and we were all under AFSOC. Second, you're telling me that the 2 hour time difference between unfolding a -60 and putting the rotors on a -47 would account for "arriving late in theater"? This is a bs argument forwarded by Sikorsky and Lockheed and those in the community who can't publicly say they don't like the -47.

And I'm pretty sure that a MAJCOM can't unilaterally rule out a potential contender for a weapon system. That's what the whole acquisitions program is for.

I don't know what the best platform for CSAR is. I'm more concerned that we've planted a couple -60s and lost some great guys in the mountains because they're overloaded and underpowered. The -47 would be an expeditious fix to the problem, but it has drawbacks, sure. I wish they would just make up their minds and get the hardware in the field so we can get back to being abused and ignored by Big Blue.

More on CSAR-X

Edited November 17, 2007 by dmeg130

[stract]

no, obviously you don't understand the difference between "mission ready" and "flight ready". The S-92 can be "mission ready" approx 1 hr after rolling off the back of a C-17/C-5, with minimal personnel participation (aka max of 10 people, and no cranes). The shithook requires 2 cranes, at least 20 people, and 2 hrs 58 min to be "flight ready". I have the video of this.

From personal experience, it took approx 5 MX and 5 Ops personnel 20 min to make a 60 "mission ready" last year. And there were no cranes involved.

From talking to Army MX personnel on this last deployment, it takes them appox 48 hrs to get a shithook to "mission ready" status.

[busdriver]

The Army's experience with the 47 lacks the upgrades that Boeing designed specifically for the CSAR-X program. Incidentally, they'll be reaping the benefits in the future.

So what does mission ready vs. flight ready mean? You're thinking black and white, mission ready means I take off and prosecute the mission, but flight ready means? What's missing? Is anything missing? That's the speculation part. No one has any idea what is missing if anything, and the answers are not releasable because the contract process is still in the works. Could this have been maneuvering? Sure, or it could be nothing, an administrative change that made the requirement less open to interpretation.

I don't want to fly the 47 any more than you do, but buying an aircraft to be my personal sports car of the air isn't a good procurement strategy.

[stract]

the article I linked talks about mission ready vs flight ready...and the csar-x platform is very very close to the MH-47, so not huge differences in basic aircraft systems.

also, the fact that the transmission has to be removed from the shithook, and all the blades, means that onces it's put back together it's going to require an FCF for tracking and balancing. I don't have any experience with tracking and balancing a Chinook, but in the 60, it takes multiple flights to get everything where it needs to be should a blade be replaced. I can only imagine this is a tad bit more involved with an aircraft having 2 rotor systems.

Edited November 18, 2007 by stract

[busdriver]

The improved air transportability kit or whatever the hell Boeing calls it is a new trick just for the CSAR-X, so you can't compare Army build up time with what's going on now. Obviously the 92 and the 101 will be faster to fly after transport than the 47, but let's not obscure things by being dishonest.

What makes you think you'll need an FCF? Do you really know what will be required to make the 47 good to go after airlift? The answer is no you don't. The details of each proposal is very close hold proprietary information. The article you linked was a piece of opinionated BS by a biased non-official entity.

Look, I don't like the 47, but given the power and MX problems of the 101 and the max gross weight issues of the 92, I don't think the 47 is a bad choice at all. Bottom line, any one of the three would work, but let's get the decision made and start delivering aircraft.

[Guest DDerrick51]

I hope you guys buy lots of ASE gear for that beast.

[Clayton Bigsby]

Stract - when you quote the shit-hook build-up times and time to Mission-Ready, were you talking to regular Army bubbas, or Campbell guys? Those guys have their shit together and don't fvck around.

Just curious, because some seem to be the farm teams, and some are definitely the pros.

Edited November 18, 2007 by Rotinaj

[stract]

Stract - when you quote the shit-hook build-up times and time to Mission-Ready, were you talking to regular Army bubbas, or Campbell guys? Those guys have their shit together and don't fvck around.

Just curious, because some seem to be the farm teams, and some are definitely the pros.

The build-up came from Boeing themselves, and I have a 45-sec video of them taking it apart (hour and a half or so) and putting it back together (2h 58m), which was their demo for the contract. The time to mission ready was from talking to some Campbell guys, but now that I think about it, they weren't MX, they were aircrew. So the time they quoted me might not be the most accurate.

[Guest Curt22]

Stract - when you quote the shit-hook build-up times and time to Mission-Ready, were you talking to regular Army bubbas, or Campbell guys? Those guys have their shit together and don't fvck around.

Just curious, because some seem to be the farm teams, and some are definitely the pros.

The POGO story sure adds a lot of drama doesn't it? Glad to see the Hollywood writers finish this up before they went on strike! Strange after so much time to "research" this story...all POGO offers is ONE point raised by the losers in the protest that was already dismissed by GAO.

oh well, sure makes for a lot of good discussion here as a result of this fairly tale...20 people and two cranes and someone has the video that is either Boeing proprietary or the property of the source selection team (or both)? hum....Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd want to make such a statement in an open forum...never know who's listening. (GAO, DoD IG, POGO LOL)

Busdriver is right, we should not presume an FCF is required because Lockheed or SAC (most likely) told POGO it is required. We all know the purpose of an FCF, to verify the condition of systems that cannot be confirmed on the ground. If Boeing's new tear down concept eliminates disturbing the physical condition of any systems (like we see on the H-60 today) then perhaps no FCF is required?

I heard from the folks at Ft Rucker the new CH-47F does NOT require what they call an MFT after airmail, and I think we know what basic airframe the proposed HH-47G is to built from.

Calling for a DoD IG isn't a BAD idea but solely based on ONE change in the requirements document? (Tear down/build up) what of the other changes that were made to the benefit of ALL contenders? Should DoD IG explore these changes too?

Why did POGO's "deep" investigative report ignore that other requirements were changed?

Changes of words such as requiring CSAR-X to be deploy and build up using BOTH a C-5 AND C-17 to the change of C-5 OR C-17?

Can anyone think of a contender that CANNOT fit inside a C-5 without removal of their MGB?

What of the change to reduce range and speed requirements breaking out into Blk-0 and Blk-10?

Is it a cooincidence the POGO story addresses a SINGLE issue that failed the GAO protest and serves the interests of the losing companies, while the story makes no mention of how other requirement changes made by the EVIL AFSOC CSAR guys worked to the advantage of the losers?

[Guest Curt22]

I hope you guys buy lots of ASE gear for that beast.

Will and HH-47 require more SE than any other contender? I don't know, will any of the acft not require test sets for the EW suite and radar and other basic acft systems???

Will any contender not require a method of removing blades, GB's, engines etc across the life cycle?

ALL the contenders will have the same basic systems (Propulsion, Flt Cont, Rotor/Drive Train, AVI etc).

Will any acft carrying the same or comparable systems not have a need to test, inspect, service and replace any component on any contender? (i.e. if the TF radar on the H-47 needs a sling/stand etc. if the same radar unit is installed on another acft will it not require the same SE?)

Clearly, all will require the same logistical SE 'tail' over the life cycle of the acft.

[Eeyore]

Interesting new words. I wonder if AFSOC desires the HH-47G to compete against the dreaded Army foe at Ft. Campbell. I'd wager that is the case since there are no -53's. Why did we not build aircraft to meet the need?? Another example, UH-72 is EC-145 and was designed for civilian use not military. When the dust settles where the AF CSAR program be?? My bet is still in the DO Loop.

[Guest DDerrick51]

I wonder if AFSOC desires the HH-47G to compete against the dreaded Army foe at Ft. Campbell.

I assume that you are talking about SOAR. Educate me please. Why would the AF conduct SF type missions (besides CSAR of course) when the 160th was stood up for that reason? Do you guys compete for the same customers? What I was referring to about the ASE gear is not really for discussion here. But there are some issues concerning the shape of the aircraft along with those two hot smoking cigars. There Army would be a good lessons learned source on the 47 issues. If you can, go to SIPRER and look up the CALL site and you will see what I am talking about.

[busdriver]

With a build up requirement of 3 hours, rapid offload isn't realistic anyways. The problems in the past of not being in theater early enough didn't have anything to do with how long it took to fold and unfold the aircraft.