Common Vertical Lift Support Platform 15 yrs late

[SVFR]

This may have been discussed already but I didn't see anything:

http://www.airforcet...110_usaf_helos/

Air Force nears UH-60 deal with Army

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Nov 1, 2010 13:32:48 EDT

The Air Force is close to finalizing a sole-source deal to buy up to 93 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters from the U.S. Army, according to defense industry sources.

Air Force officials launched the effort to replace the service's Vietnam War-vintage UH-1N Hueys with commercially available helicopters last year. From the beginning, the Air Force said it would make performance tradeoffs to keep costs down for what is called the Common Vertical Lift Support Platform. Air Force pilots fly UH-1Ns over the service's bases in Wyoming, North Dakota and Montana to monitor ICBM sites. The service also maintains Huey fleets at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., to airlift VIPs around Washington; and at Hurlburt Field, Fla., for special operations missions.

Service officials are proposing to buy the UH-60Ms without seeking competitive bids, a move they say will save money, according to the reports by Inside the Air Force and Citizens Against Government Waste.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Baseops.Net
Copyright Violation (AF Times) - Posting more than the first paragraph.

[busdriver]

The idea that an EC-135 can replace the Huey is freaking joke. Yeah, the Huey isn't big enough, let's get something smaller. That'll totally work...Who the fuck thinks this shit up?

[Eeyore]

Sorry to see the twin power pack go but it is time.. Using the H-60 platform will enable a smaller logistical chain, help provide a break for the deployed overtasked CSAR units, and greater potential for future CCs/DOs within Global Strike units. A win overall.

The EC145or EC135 are fine for EMS mission, however agree limited cargo area and tad under powered when hot and heavy. Why would the AF even consider them??

[contraildash]

Gotta point out that the report says AW offered the AW139. It's substantially larger than the EC135 or 145. It's also substantially more expensive (per the AW webstie) than the UH-60M at around 22 million a pop. I couldn't find information at sikorsky on the UH-60M, but wiki (FWIW) says they are 14 million.

Sorry to see the twin power pack go but it is time.. Using the H-60 platform will enable a smaller logistical chain, help provide a break for the deployed overtasked CSAR units, and greater potential for future CCs/DOs within Global Strike units. A win overall.

The EC145or EC135 are fine for EMS mission, however agree limited cargo area and tad under powered when hot and heavy. Why would the AF even consider them??

Beacuse someone is going to bitch enough (oh it isn't fair...whaaa). Then congress will force us to waste time AND money on a competition and then pick something that doesn't do the job and costs more in the end to build/operate/support/train folks. But some insignificanly small number of jobs will be created in bumfvck nowhere and a foreign defense contractor will be appeased.

“Instead of having an open competition for a helicopter that meets the CVLSP requirements, the Air Force wants to cut corners and buy a bigger, more expensive helicopter from the Army. This would be like buying Humvees to replace mail trucks,” the watchdog group wrote on its website.

These people are idiots that don't see the big picture.

The UH-60M has been doing good work for the Army. I just read the memoir of a Army blackhawk pilot who flew them and was thuroughly impressed with the increased performance/capability over the older models. As previously stated, here is a proven a/c that we don't have to reinvent the damn wheel to get out on the line.

edited for information

Edited November 5, 2010 by contraildash

[Guest Hueypilot812]

These people are idiots that don't see the big picture.

Very true. They are looking simply to replace an orange with another orange, regardless of the long-term cost or effectiveness. Having slick UH-60s doing the work at missile bases also gives the USAF the option of deploying those previously non-deployable assets to fill in for MEDEVAC/CASEVAC duties that our CSAR forces are having to fill. Why spend millions per aircraft only to have them perform ONE mission...ie, a non-deployable mission...when you can buy UH-60s that do the same job at home AND can do the job overseas?

By the time they work out a deal and fund a future -1N replacement, it'll easily cost more per unit than the UH-60M costs.

[craino21]

The Air Force has helicopters? I'll believe it when I see it. The acquisitions system will find some way to mess this up, just like CSAR-X/PRV/HH-60M.

[Ebony zer]

The UH-1N is non-deployable? I keep getting told everyday that we are "deployed in place". Oh yeah, I've been trying to pick up a 60 slot for over 2 years now and was told by one CC that the UH-1N is "A better mission than CSAR". Oh well, I'll just do a 365 and count down the days remaining on my ADSC (4 years 9 months and 24 days).

[SVFR]

I keep getting told everyday that we are "deployed in place".

That's what I love about space command. They piss on your back and tell you it is raining.

[Dupe]

This whole story is really a defense contractor flapping his wings to get the Air Force to move away from a strategy that they haven't even decided on yet.

The Air Force is close to finalizing a sole-source deal to buy up to 93 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters from the U.S. Army, according to defense industry sources.

At this time' date=' the Air Force has not determined the acquisition strategy for CVLSP. All options are under review and no decisions have been finalized,” said Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, an Air Force spokesman[/quote']

There are some pretty strong disadvantages to buying used UH-60s. Over the nominal 20-year life of the aircraft, a new helo (from AW, Sikorsky, or really any other maker..the medium lift helo market looks pretty competitive to me) is likely to have much reduced operations and maintanane costs. Typically for the Air Force, lifecycle O & M costs are more than 10 times the cost of the procurement cost. The pre-solicitation notice even states "Meeting schedule is critical and we will consider some performance trade-offs to meet schedule at an affordable cost." Info on FBO.gov

Additionally, the Air Force has been under intense scrutiny (for obvious reasons) for our aquisitions programs. I expect this program to have a proper selection board and then follow up with a firm fixed price contract very shortly after.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

There are some pretty strong disadvantages to buying used UH-60s. Over the nominal 20-year life of the aircraft, a new helo (from AW, Sikorsky, or really any other maker..the medium lift helo market looks pretty competitive to me) is likely to have much reduced operations and maintanane costs.

M-model Black Hawks aren't exactly "old" aircraft...the Army just started acquiring them not that long ago (2006). Seeing as though the UH-1Ns were delivered in the early 1970s, the USAF should be able to squeeze plenty of life out of a slightly-used UH-60 if they are used for missile support 75% of the time.

The problem with buying a "new" aircraft to fill the role of the UH-1N is you're spending a ton of money for the requisite OT&E regardless whether the aircraft is "off-the-shelf" or not. People talk about the UH-72 as a good example of what the USAF should do, but honestly the UH-72 is designed for CONUS-based Corps-support missions (ie, home station MEDEVAC and light utility). They aren't really considered a deployable asset. Most of the USAF UH-1N squadrons have a side mission that includes SAR, and seeing that some of them are located in or very near mountainous, high altitude terrain, it makes sense to replace them with a robust aircraft that has good high-altitude capabilities. Additionally, if the USAF bought the UH-60M, they could deploy them as slick MEDEVAC helos, something the dedicated CSAR crews would probably be grateful for (along with Army MEDEVAC units).

Maybe then the former UH-1N crews wouldn't be AFPC's favorite place to look for 365 non-vols if their community had a deployed role in addition to their "deployed in place" mission.

[Dupe]

...the USAF should be able to squeeze plenty of life out of a slightly-used UH-60 if they are used for missile support 75% of the time.

There's no question that we could keep UH-60s working for a long life. The real question is "What's the cost to do so?" There's some land mines in a GOTS solution that ops level bros probably never see. So if the Air Force acquires UH-60Ms, how are we getting the parts / contractor support? If the Army directly supplies them to us and they keep the parts / support contract alive, that will mean that Global Strike Command will be relying on Big Army to accomplish their missile launch operations. I don't see GSC going for that. If we start a new supply / support contract with Sikorsky, they are then free to rape the Air Force because they know they will be the sole vendor. Even if all that were sorted out, I think the UH-60 will be more expensive to operate than any of the medium lift helos currently on the commercial market. Have I beat the drum enough that O & M costs are orders of magnitude larger than Procurment and Testing costs? I don't see the AF buying a cheaper asset upfront (even if it is more capable) only to have it be grossly more expensive to operate in the long run.

The problem with buying a "new" aircraft to fill the role of the UH-1N is you're spending a ton of money for the requisite OT&E regardless whether the aircraft is "off-the-shelf" or not.

Are you suggesting that the Air Force would not require OT&E for the UH-60? Program guys always sell GOTS/COTS as "no testing required." Usually, that's false. Even for the Black Hawk, AFOTEC would certainly require some form of suitability and maintainability testing. Once you factor in Procurment cost and Operations and Maintanance costs, the OT&E are usually only a few percentage of the total lifecycle cost of the acquisition. OT&E would definately be cheaper for the UH-60, but its all peanuts compared to other costs

People talk about the UH-72 as a good example of what the USAF should do, but honestly the UH-72 is designed for CONUS-based Corps-support missions (ie, home station MEDEVAC and light utility). They aren't really considered a deployable asset. Most of the USAF UH-1N squadrons have a side mission that includes SAR, and seeing that some of them are located in or very near mountainous, high altitude terrain, it makes sense to replace them with a robust aircraft that has good high-altitude capabilities. Additionally, if the USAF bought the UH-60M, they could deploy them as slick MEDEVAC helos, something the dedicated CSAR crews would probably be grateful for (along with Army MEDEVAC units).

Realize that the operations you do with an aircraft and the requirements you place on aircraft procurement are two completely seperate animals. Ideally, the lead command for a system would make its requirements clear to the program office. The lead command should also tell the program office which requirements are more flexible than others. Aircraft performance requirements aren't the only requirements out there. There's also cost and schedule requirements. For this program, the party line seems clear: "We need a low cost platform that meets our schedule. We're willing to skimp on performance to do so." Sure, SAR is a meaningfull mission to the guys flying the lines and the world at large, but does GSC really see high altitude performance as hard requirement? Since there are no missile fields in the mountains, GSC will probably see this one as flexible. Having a deployable asset doesn't look like it will be a requiremnt at all. We'll see what the requirements are when (or if) a RFP comes out. I understand the Dustoff challenge downrange, but the view from the program office is that they shouldn't pay extra for something that is essentially an Army need...even if it sadly isn't being fully met.

[busdriver]

The Air Force already uses the Army depot system to support the HH-60G, don't know why using it to support the GSC mission would be any different. Would there be some OT&E for the new aircraft? Sure, but assuming the HH-60M (AF version) recap program goes ahead (not holding my breath) the two programs could be married up like they were years ago.

I admit I jumped on the Haterade a bit, I bit off on the author linking the Army's use of the Lakota to replacing the Huey. The AW139 is a pretty nice aircraft but I don't think the O&M costs would be that drastically different when you include the existing support structure for the Blackhawk family.

But as craino pointed out, the AF procurement system will just fuck it up again.

[SVFR]

does GSC really see high altitude performance as hard requirement?

Yes, Kirtland and FE Warren are over 6000 feet and I know that Fairchild has training areas that high as well. In addition, the main reason GSC has helos is to get as many troops on the ground as fast as possible. The UH-72 would be a poor solution.

[contraildash]

does GSC really see high altitude performance as hard requirement? Since there are no missile fields in the mountains...

They should.

On October 2, 1999, a 3 year-old boy had become separated from his family in a heavily wooded

area in the Cameron Pass area of Colorado. The next day, searchers called for a UH-1N Huey

helicopter from F.E. Warren Air Force Base, WY.

According to the NTSB preliminary report, the helicopter:

…departed F.E. Warren Air Force Base en route to the search area, approximately 60

miles SSW of the base. Following a briefing at the search and rescue command post, the

crew flew two sorties over the search and rescue area. After refueling, the crew returned

to the SAR area and began their final sortie. Shortly after crossing the base camp for a

pass up the valley, the mission co-pilot felt the helicopter sinking. He pulled up to

maximum power in an effort to arrest the sink, but that failed and the mission pilot took the

controls. The mission pilot also unsuccessfully tried to increase power and airspeed, but

there was not sufficient power at that altitude to recover.

The helicopter impacted the trees, stopped on a sloped mountainside at approximately

8,600 feet and was damaged beyond repair. All helicopter crewmembers were treated

and released for minor injuries. There was no damage to private property.

The accident investigation board, convened by the AFSPC commander, Gen. Richard B.

Myers, concluded the helicopter crash was caused primarily due to the mission pilots flying

too low and too slow for the altitude, terrain, and winds/turbulance (sic). Once the aircraft

began to sink, they did not have enough power, airspeed, or altitude to recover.

One of the rescuers was a volunteer member of Larimer County Search and Rescue, an MRA

team.

The missing boy was never found.

[Dupe]

Yes, Kirtland and FE Warren are over 6000 feet and I know that Fairchild has training areas that high as well. In addition, the main reason GSC has helos is to get as many troops on the ground as fast as possible. The UH-72 would be a poor solution.

The UH-72 may be a poor solution. Hopefully, the acquisition process sorts that out. The program has yet to produce an acquisitions strategy. Essentially, its an option of a) deciding to take Army UH-60Ms in the biggest Economy Act deal ever in an aquisitions environment that is downright hostile to such a move or b) Generating a set of requirements and then posting those requirements in a Request For Proposal. Based on the high scrutiny of current Air Force aquisitions, I give option B a 98% chance of happening. Having a RFP does not mean we'll get the UH-72. It means the Air Force will publish all of its requirements and let any defense contractor bid. Folling the RFP, there may be a downselect and even a fly-off. That will all be in the aquisition strategy. Key to all of this is the requirements that GSC puts out in the RFP. Where do these requirements come from? The helo staff guys at GSC come up with them. As much as I love flying, I'm now convinced that the right rated guy in the right staff job can make an impact for decades in his MWS. The requirments for your next helo are being hammered out right now.

[contraildash]

Other than the Lakota being mentioned as the Army's UH-1 replacement, I don't see in that article where it's mentioned as a replacement for the AF birds. The only other helo mentioned was the AW139, a very different a/c.

UH-72

AW139

[Guest]

Yes, Kirtland and FE Warren are over 6000 feet and I know that Fairchild has training areas that high as well. In addition, the main reason GSC has helos is to get as many troops on the ground as fast as possible. The UH-72 would be a poor solution.

Warren used to do a fair amount of SAR work in the rockies "back in the day." Got a save at 13.5k in the F-model which was the single engine record at the time. Transitioned to the UH-1N and lost some of the F-model high altitude capability but gained a whole lot nicer machine.

I will be sad to see the N-model go.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Warren used to do a fair amount of SAR work in the rockies "back in the day." Got a save at 13.5k in the F-model which was the single engine record at the time. Transitioned to the UH-1N and lost some of the F-model high altitude capability but gained a whole lot nicer machine.

I will be sad to see the N-model go.

I read an article somewhere that said the DC ARNG still has two UH-1Hs, and those are the last two Hueys in the Army inventory. I'm sure they won't be there much longer if they haven't been replaced by the UH-72 already.

I'm sad to see Hueys go. I flew them, my dad flew them and my grandfather flew them. I grew up an Army brat watching UH-1s and AH-1s flying everywhere. I know they are old and times change but some of my best "aviation memories" was being a kid in Germany and watching all the Army helicopters heading out for the REFORGER exercises during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Those days are pretty much gone for good.

Back to the subject. I'm pretty sure the Augusta/Westland aircraft would do a decent job, but it's an entirely new aircraft to the US DoD and would require far extensive OT&E than taking slick Hawks from the Army. Not sure that, given how our current acquisition system works, going with an entirely new airframe would be more cost effective.

[Breckey]

The flat iron medevac birds out here still have a couple UH-1V's along with the UH-72's. Also believe that there are some UH-1H's out at White Sands doing range support for the grunts out there.

[Lawman]

Buddy in the Missouri Air Guard has a Huey at his Airfield with US Army still painted on it. They are still out there, just getting really few and far between. Sucks too because I would love to fly a Huey if only for a short hop.

Lakota has some big issues associated with it that are either ignored or not talked about because they dont want to risk doubling down and losing what hand they were dealt in the matter. The thing that always made me uncomfortable when they started replacing Flat Iron at Rucker was that our primary trainers fly 3 to an Aircraft and they couldnt Medevac that many people on a single Lakota. So the idea of 3 guys laying in a field, burned and bleeding and some E4 having to pick who got to go never really gave me a warm fuzzy. If the AF really wanted to stay with Hueys, the Yankee the Marines are flying would be an outstanding choice. In all honestly I could not for the life of my understand how the Army decided Lakota was a better option than the new Huey given all the things it would bring to the mission and all the old parts and MX it would have allowed us to keep.

Honestly after seeing what the last few Helicopter Procurement programs in any service have looked like its all a disaster it isnt just an Air Force thing. Im in the Service that managed to piss 12 billion dollars into a hole, bury the hole, and then start a tire fire on top of the hole. All we got to show for it were a pair of black helicopters currently packed away in Hangers at Ft Rucker collecting dust and a really nice building to teach the Longbow AQC in.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

The Guard still has a few Hueys in their inventory but from what I've read and heard, most have been withdrawn from use. They may be sitting at the airfield but are likely not in a flying status.

I'm surprised that Flatiron still has Hueys. But then again, they've had Hueys since I can remember.

[SVFR]

The UH-72 may be a poor solution. Hopefully, the acquisition process sorts that out. The program has yet to produce an acquisitions strategy. Essentially, its an option of a) deciding to take Army UH-60Ms in the biggest Economy Act deal ever in an aquisitions environment that is downright hostile to such a move or b) Generating a set of requirements and then posting those requirements in a Request For Proposal. Based on the high scrutiny of current Air Force aquisitions, I give option B a 98% chance of happening. Having a RFP does not mean we'll get the UH-72. It means the Air Force will publish all of its requirements and let any defense contractor bid. Folling the RFP, there may be a downselect and even a fly-off. That will all be in the aquisition strategy. Key to all of this is the requirements that GSC puts out in the RFP. Where do these requirements come from? The helo staff guys at GSC come up with them. As much as I love flying, I'm now convinced that the right rated guy in the right staff job can make an impact for decades in his MWS. The requirments for your next helo are being hammered out right now.

I think you are placing too much faith in the guys a GSC to see the big picture.

What is so hard to understand about common in common vertical lift support platform? A couple of the previous posts eluded to the benefits of having the same basic helo platform Air Force wide. If the SAR community isn't replacing the 60 then GSC should replace the hueys with 60s and alleviate some of the chronic manning/shitty assignment problems. Tired of deploying? Enjoy the relaxed family atmosphere in Wyoming! Tired of freezing you ass off? Have we got sun and sand for you!

[Guest]

Enjoy the relaxed family atmosphere in Wyoming!

Awesome assignment.

[HeloDude]

AF to upgrade aging Hueys for stateside work

The Air Force is asking defense companies for suggestions on how to increase the venerable Huey’s endurance, range, speed, survivability, navigation and communications capabilities to meet Pentagon requirements for guarding nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile fields in the northern U.S.

Also, the Air Force wants to be able to fly the helicopters in all types of weather, according to an April 17 request for information.

Who are they kidding? Endurance/range = more efficient engines/power plant, ability to carry more fuel, etc. The new engines are a slim possibility, but I don't see them overhauling much else.

Increased speed means you would have to give us a slower rotor, requiring more rotor blades to produce similar lift capabilities, etc...don't see this one happening either.

Navigation?...there's a GPS, that's good enough. Communication--just give the non-Andrews birds better radios.

The biggest joke is the 'all weather capabilities'--anti-icing rotor blades? I'll believe it when I see it.

If the Air Force wanted to have all these things then they should have just bought a new helicopter--one with more cabin space, better/stronger engines, fully articulated rotor blades, ability to carry more fuel...

[Skipatrol]

Pretty sure they've already got an upgrade solution out there--it's called the UH-1Y Venom. Production line is already in place and running, depot at Cherry Point already in place and goin strong. Minimal to no start up costs. Plus FWIW, you could make it a gunship and cabin space would no longer be a concern (ya, ya I know the AF *can't* make it a gunship).

Chances AFGSC would do something that made sense? Zero.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Skipatrol