CSAR-X

[busdriver]

Yes, and when the AF ships your birds off to be the 5/160th, those guys will actually refuel them. Thanks for being a team player.

I know what you're saying and agree. However, never happen. They'd pull the probes off and poof, the Huey replacement question is answered.

[brock]

The 60M is an improvement for the regular Army units. It has some nice bells and whistles. I flew with some of the M model guys in OEF. The new HH model is going to have some limitations. For you G model guys who have been in the OEF AOR you know what limitaions we are talking about.

I personally don't think it is the answer for the Air Force or Army medevac to be honest with you. You SAR bubbas have flown both missions sets and know that more room is needed as well as some extra power. You get neither with the 60 M after all is said and done.

I'm a 60 guy who loves the airframe. I just don't think it is a good fit for medevac or CSAR.

[busdriver]

Maybe you can convince the Army they need something bigger, and we can dream up a joint helo buy?

[Breckey]

Since the Navy did some work on the VH-71, does that mean that the AF can purchase the HH-71? One can dream right?

[Guest Lockjaw25]

Latest from Algore's Internets:

"Many platforms being examined for CSAR"

Seems the Osprey is yet once again in competition for at least a portion of the mission.

[usaf36031]

blah blah blah...blah blah blah....In a blunt declaration, Schaffer told Defense News the Air Force will not be forced to surrender the CSAR mission as some have predicted will happen...blah blah blah

Good.

Edited March 7, 2010 by usaf36031

[RescueRandy]

Good.

Definitely good! However, the fact that the CV-22 is the only aircraft that Schaffer mentioned as a replacement for the 60 is atrocious. The CV-22 was built to eternally and repeatedly execute operation Eagle Claw, not pull survivors out of hot LZs. Apparently CAPE hasn't seen the smoldering holes left behind after an infill/exfill by that thing. More space in the back, better ability to maintain an OGE hover at high altitude... not counter-rotating egg-beaters on a "hovering" airplane! Is that so hard to understand!?

Busdriver was right... the 47 would have worked just fine. We didn't need to re-invent it. Just continue 85% of the existing assembly line and modify/upgrade as necessary (preferrably with input from the operators). The Army has been sucsessfully using the 47 for high-altitude rescues in Alaska for decades. It seems like a logical choice to me for increasing capability without starting an entirely new R&D process and production line. When are "we" ever going to pull our heads out???

[busdriver]

Careful guys, they didn't say the CV-22 would replace the 60, it won't the Air Force cannot afford to buy that many. There is nothing good in that article for Air Force 60 drivers.

This is what I was talking about with regard to returning to AFSOC/SOCOM. Unless I'm completely out to left field, I read that as plus up the CV-22 fleet a bit and add a CSAR mission to their DOC statement. This is what having SOF as a mission gains you, they get to fund one community and support multiple mission sets. So when he said: not forcing USAF to give up the CSAR mission; he did not say: keep tactical helos in the USAF inventory.

[usaf36031]

Schaffer told reporters OSD is examining several future CSAR force mixes. Asked by Defense News about those possible mixes, Schaffer cited only one: using the once embattled CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor for the search-and-rescue mission.

He said a major focus within OSD will be determining how to "get at" the remaining "10 percent of the requirement."

Could he possibly be hinting at plans to augment the existing CSAR force with -22's (maybe AFSOC 22's) in order to fill in a capability gap that we could potentially run into for "10%" of our missions? ie. Keep a hundred 60 mikes for 90% of the personnel recovery missions but have a few ospreys in the back pocket for the potential of a long range, high speed, large LZ type recovery mission?

Seems to go along with the multiple platforms theme that they like so much.

Edited March 8, 2010 by usaf36031

[HiFlyer]

For you rescue guys, here's the FY2010 AF posture statement...note some discussion towards the back about recapping the "Personnel Recovery" mission.

www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100223-010.pdf

[Guest Lockjaw25]

I read into it much the same that busdriver did. Perhaps I'm just being pessimistic, but I see this as "well of course the USAF will still do CSAR...just as a secondary mission by CV-22 squadrons."

[usaf36031]

For you rescue guys, here's the FY2010 AF posture statement...note some discussion towards the back about recapping the "Personnel Recovery" mission.

Here is the section on PR for those of you who couldn't open the document at work (I couldn't)

Personnel recovery (PR) remains an important commitment the Air Force makes to the Joint force. The increased utilization of military and civilian personnel in support of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) has dramatically increased the number of individuals who may find themselves isolated. This has in-turn created an increasing demand for Air Force rescue forces beyond the combat search and rescue mission. Air Force PR forces are fully engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa, accomplishing crucial medical and casualty evacuation missions for U.S. and Coalition military and civilian personnel.

This year, we will continue to surge critical personnel recovery capability to the field, and will start replacing the aging fleet. To bring the fleet back to its original size of 112 HH-60Gs, we will put the first four operational loss replacement aircraft on contract. Additionally, we will deliver the first two HC-130J tanker aircraft, starting the replacement of the 1960s-era HC-130P fleet.

The FY11 budget request continues the replacement of operational losses and modernization of aging equipment. This request funds the last eight HH-60G operational loss replacement aircraft by the end of FY12. Additionally, we begin the process of recapitalizing the remaining fleet with the inclusion of $1.5B to procure 36 HH-60G replacement aircraft in the FYDP. We also continue our recapitalization of the HC-130P/N fleet with HC-130J aircraft. Finally, we request $553M in funding throughout the FYDP for the Guardian Angel program, which will standardize and modernize mission essential equipment for our pararescuemen.

[stract]

so what exactly do we need advanced boresight equipment for? I can think of several possibilities:

a. when the copilot neglects to do a PPOS on the INS prior to shutdown

b. when the copilot neglects to ensure proper coords prior to starting the GC align (see a.)

c. the GPS isn't keyed, and so won't do an air align of the INS, and the pilots forgot how to do a fix/flyover/update (or never knew in the first place)

d. for the fire control system that we really really need

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13375/

Edited March 9, 2010 by stract

[craino21]

so what exactly do we need advanced boresight equipment for? I can think of several possibilities:

d. for the fire control system that we really really need

Lock 'em forward, switches.

[stract]

some more interesting news:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/03/airforce_csar_recap_032810w/

The new plan, released March 23 by the Aeronautical Systems Center, calls for awarding a contract in 2012 and reaching initial operational capability with eight aircraft by September 2015. No date has been set for replacing all HH-60Gs.

No requirement is set for patient capacity, although operational scenarios in the proposal cite the need to carry two wounded troops. The plan, however, does call for an aircrew of four — two pilots and two flight engineers/aerial gunners — and room for three pararescuemen and their gear.

From the Federal Business Opportunities page https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e0d2f218043862f1a8f4e3c3d1200c83&tab=core&_cview=1 :

12.Hover Performance: A combat configured HH-60 Recap with SCL must have an out-of-ground-effect (OGE) hover capability at mid-mission gross weights1 at 6,000' PA, 35ºC.

-------------------------------------

Aircraft shall be combat configured with mission fuel, 875 pounds of weapons and ammunition, 105 pounds of IR and RF countermeasure expendables and cabin armor as required meeting Attachment 1 force protection requirements plus an SCL of 2,500 lbs.

Mid-Mission gross weight is defined as the weight at the end of the terminal area operations just after picking up two IPs (as noted in the mission profiles), with full SCL, with sufficient fuel to complete the 220 nautical miles (nm) egress and land with fuel reserve in accordance with AFI11-202 volume 3.

PIXS link referenced in the above document for more detailed info: https://www.pixs.wpafb.af.mil/pixs_solicitation.asp?id=6470

From looking at the posted definition on the SCL, and the initial requirement to be able to conduct an OGE hover at 6000'/35º with 2500 lbs of fuel departing the zone (based on current fuel flow numbers of 1200 lbs/hr by my math), they're at least throwing out realistic scenarios. Do these numbers automatically exclude certain airframes due to not being able to meet the stated performance parameters?

Of course, as clearly stated, the above is just a "feeler," not an actual RFP.

[busdriver]

stract, unless the 60 gets much more powerful engines that are also much more fuel efficient and the empty weight drops significantly I don't see how a mike model with appropriate mods can meet that spec.

[Breckey]

Does the Merlin or the S-92 meet these specs?

[brock]

I was at a medevac conference a few weeks ago arguing against the HH-60 M. It just doesn't haver the power margin. In your guys community it is an even bigger problem. I think the Merlin would be a great choice.Something with with a higher power margin as well as more cabin space.

[busdriver]

If I had to guess, all three aircraft the Merlin and S-92 offered in the CSAR-X competition could meet that requirement. Comparing the three is extremely difficult without actually seeing the offerings, and no one outside of the source selection team have seen all three.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Osprey could meet that spec as well.

EDIT: Changed after reading the rest of the spec, not just range and hover performance. But still just idle speculation. If Sikorsky can come up with a 60 that can do what is being asked without adding the external drop tanks, I'd be very surprised.

Edited April 2, 2010 by busdriver

[Breckey]

Why would they even pitch the 60M when they have the S-92 that can probably already meet the specs? It's already doing some SAR work for Canadia (CH-148) so some of avionics integration has already been completed. Just throw an IFR boom on there and your set.

[Guest DASH]

Ran across this little article today... CSAR/CVLSP

Just another tease by the Air Force, or do you think this could be for real?

[SCRIMP]

The Merlin seems like a great aircraft, but after talking with people that actually fly it I have definite concerns with its tactical capabilities. I hope they ask us...and I hope that they get it figured out sooner rather than later.

[Breckey]

Some of the higher ups that i've talked to like the idea of a CVLSP and CSAR -60M because it eases training and enables x-flow among the AF helo community more readily. Whether it will actually happen or is just a pipe dream of some O-6's remain to be seen

[Daredevileng1]

Defense News

U.S. Air Force Delays Pave Hawk Replacement

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Published: 10 Aug 2011 19:38

U.S. Air Force combat rescue helicopters might not reach the battlefield until 2018, further delaying the service's ongoing effort to recapitalize its fatigued HH-60 Pave Hawk fleet. This would come seven years after the Air Force selected the Boeing HH-47 as the winner in an unsuccessful effort to replace its Pave Hawks. The service expects the HH-60 Recap aircraft "will be an existing production helicopter with modifications using existing mature technology with only limited integration of existing subsystems as required," the RfI states.

In all, the Air Force is expected to replace 112 Sikorsky Pave Hawk helicopters, which have been in service since the early 1980s. Initial operational capability (IOC) not expected until 2018, the RfI states. However, the document does note the battle-ready date could be sooner. IOC includes eight aircraft, training systems, support and the ability to deploy four aircraft for 30 days.

The Air Force will assess companies' ability to reach IOC by 2018 "or sooner with a medium risk schedule," the RfI states. An October 2010 RfI for the Pave Hawk recapitalization effort called for battle-ready helicopters by the end of 2015. The RfI does not go into many details and refers bidders to a systems requirements document, which will only be released to contractors. While the RfI does not state performance characteristics of the desired helicopter, it does note the Air Force anticipates using multiple datalinks. It also notes the service "may or may not" include a training system as part of the program's engineering and manufacturing development phase. Responses to the RfI are due by Sept. 19.

The Air Force selected the Boeing HH-47 as the winner of the Combat Search-and-Recue Helicopter (CSAR-X) competition in 2006. The $15 billion CSAR-X program was recompeted after industry protest by Sikorsky and a Lockheed Martin-Agusta Westland team. The program was eventually canceled by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who ordered the Air Force to scale back the effort. Many of the same players are expected to be involved in the HH-60 Recap competition, although the teams might change. Sikorsky has teamed with Lockheed in recent years to offer the Black Hawk in numerous military helicopter competitions. Lockheed performs systems integration duties.

Agusta Westland has teamed with Boeing to compete to build a new Presidential Helicopter for the U.S. Marine Corps. Boeing has obtained the rights to co-build the AW101. In prior information requests for the HH-60 recap program, Agusta Westland has pitched its AW101, Bell-Boeing the V-22 Osprey, Boeing the Chinook, EADS the EC725 and NH90 and Sikorsky the UH-60M Black Hawk. Based on the Army Black Hawk, the HH-60 Pave Hawk is modified with rescue-specific equipment, such as upgraded navigation, communication, radar and sensors. Over the years, the service has lost numerous aircraft and the current fleet has been continuously deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, where they routinely fly medical evacuation missions.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Daredevileng1

[Breckey]

Cue CVLSP delay in 5...4...3...2...