Guest Curt22 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 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. Yes...USAF SOF "competes" with Army SOF...but it's a friendly sort of thing...just as there are those who think all things with rotors should be in the Army...there are those who think all things that FLY should be in the USAF. However, this has nothing to do with CSAR since SOCOM never wanted the job, and the USAF was very happy to get their hands on the billions of acquisition dollars and the mission again, so buying HH-47G for the CSAR mission wasn't thought of as a way to "out stalk the night stalkers"...but just a smart biz decision for fielding an acft fast that had the proper mix of capabilities that the CSAR folks themselves decided they needed for their mission. Sorry, I forgot to translate your "ASE" comment...I'm used to the term EW systems...a major part of the capability required for CSAR and all the hard integration work has been done by our brothers in green from Ft Campbell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeyore Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Shack for Curt22!! Those old helo folks all know why the 55th SOS and 20th SOS exsisted!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DDerrick51 Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Just curious. As a current fixed wing pilot (unreformed Apache pilot) for the Army, I would not like the idea of all FW being in the AF or all RW being in the Army. I was curious as to how which unit was selected for the missions. Rivalry can be good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Just curious. As a current fixed wing pilot (unreformed Apache pilot) for the Army, I would not like the idea of all FW being in the AF or all RW being in the Army. I was curious as to how which unit was selected for the missions. Rivalry can be good thing. Let's take the next step in that theory and ask...How about placing everything that FLIES in an Air Force, everything that FLOATS in a Sea Force and everything that walks, rolls or crawls to the battle in a Land Force??? I know I'll not see this in my life time, but I do enjoy the fantasy! But I digress...I agree, compatition/rivalrey is good for creating new ideas, methods and tactics...if we were all under the same doctrine there might be little opportunity for much in the way of growth. I don't know about ALL roles and missions, but all services are bound by DoD to provide some semblance of Personal Recovery. Why does the USAF seem to want (need) more to do this job? Perhaps it's because their concept is built around the recovery of our fighter/bomber aircrew who are expected to "go deep" into high threat areas, so it makes sense for the AF's rescue forces to be equipped to respond to these environments should the need arise. Fortunately the need to pick up the random shot down bubble head doesn't happen too often, so these forces are able to use their extraordinary assets and training to help all sorts of other folks in need including our brothers and sisters from the other services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Reviving this long dormant thread. This doesn't look good for us getting anything in my career: DOD IG is looking into KPP change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 (edited) if they find the KPP was improperly changed (from "mission ready" to "flight ready" in 3 hrs), then that means the Chinook most likely won't win (again) since it could BARELY make "flight ready" in 3 hrs, with the help of 30 people and 2 cranes. Edited March 2, 2008 by stract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeyore Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 if they kind the KPP was improperly changed (from "mission ready" to "flight ready" in 3 hrs), then that means the Chinook most likely won't win (again) since it could BARELY make "flight ready" in 3 hrs, with the help of 30 people and 2 cranes. I smell a serious rat who is about to get smacked. Another AF AQ mess with Boeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Boeing may be able to save themselves if they can prove that that change didn't impact their proposal. It does seem unlikely you wouldn't need an FCF after rebuilding the heads like that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 if they kind the KPP was improperly changed (from "mission ready" to "flight ready" in 3 hrs), then that means the Chinook most likely won't win (again) since it could BARELY make "flight ready" in 3 hrs, with the help of 30 people and 2 cranes. I've missed the banter too...even the 30 people and two cranes argument! I'm sure the SPO and ACC welcomes the DoD IG inspection, after all, will DoD IG poke a stick in the eye of Congress's GAO who's already stated the protest claims of changing KPP's was without merit? The reality is there were no "changes" of the KPP's, they are the same ones that the Air Staff and Joint Staff approved in the CDD before the first RFP was issued. As for changes during the requirements development process, there are many reasons these things occur... requests from industry, market research, congressional mandates (big deal for force protection these days) etc...there are always adjustments made to the KPP's that benefit to greater and lesser extents all contenders. The KPP's are of course frozen when the JROC approves the CDD. As for the wonderful rumor of moving goalposts....even POGO, (who's love of the USAF is legendary) has reported the USAF announced it was Lockheed asking for the mission/flight ready change. Why??? I have no idea, but I suspect the magical "3 hrs" and mission ready will not be the only subjects reviewed concerning changes, it's just the only point the losing contenders wanted to focus on because it serves their argument. Will DoD IG answer why such things as speed and range thresholds were split out into two blocks, instead of requiring all candidates to meet ALL requirements at IOC? Will DoD IG reveal these "changes" helped some contenders buy time to develop new engines, drive train, and rotor systems needed to meet the USAF's performace requirements several years after IOC? Time will tell what the DoD IG finds and once again, this is time borrowed from our troops in the field who are trading gas and armor for bullets and power margin today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Interesting way to look at it. I guess I'm just cynical. It may be that the IG is what saves the whole program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Boeing may be able to save themselves if they can prove that that change didn't impact their proposal. It does seem unlikely you wouldn't need an FCF after rebuilding the heads like that though. Haven't we talked of FCF's before? If no engine or flight controls are disturbed...what will the "FCF" be checking? Since it appears the H-47's pulling rotorhead and gearbox as an assembly (as done with the H-53) there would be no effect to rotor balance since the split cones/pressure plates are not distubed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I know what you're saying and intellectually I agree 100%. There's just a part of me (not the logic using part) that wonders.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 I know what you're saying and intellectually I agree 100%. There's just a part of me (not the logic using part) that wonders.... Sorry, computer hiccuped on the last reply and I can't seem to delete it. I know the feeling...but as you say the logic is there...little different from folding the H-60 TR for air shipment...we aren't concerned for track and balance (but maybe we should be since the weights are removed...not dogging the Mx troops, I've never heard of such an error, and the process is pretty "Army Proof". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Ymous Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Okay it is only a few weeks after March, when the above memo says the Audit was supposed to take place. So it may be early, but I just wanted to see if anyone heard anything new. The suspense is killing me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JorryFright21 Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Already been delayed again. October I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted April 19, 2008 Share Posted April 19, 2008 Already been delayed again. October I believe... Yes, another RFP (Number six for those of you scoring at home) has been or will be issued soon, and Aviation Week is reporting this RFP will include language for vendors to respond with info reporting how much "foreign specialty metals" are used on the acft...(What a joy!) The foreign metals deal is a new law and I wonder how this will impact the EH-101, which is of course nothing but a pile of foreign sourced parts and also wonder what impact could this have for the KC-X protest...will GAO request another Tanker RFP to address the same issue as it has imposed for CSAR-X? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Ymous Posted April 19, 2008 Share Posted April 19, 2008 So much for a new CSAR helo in my career.... I say scrap the whole bid and buy M Model 60s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 interesting news about how the funding will work for the CSAR-X: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=350...c=AME&s=TOP "When industry and program managers know that annual program funding will be provided at a predictable level, and that other aspects of the program - such as unfunded performance or requirements changes - are not allowed, there is an increasing probability that the program will be delivered on schedule and within budget," Patterson said during the session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curt22 Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 interesting news about how the funding will work for the CSAR-X: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=350...c=AME&s=TOP Isn't this what the "POM Cycle" is all about? I don't understand how this differs from the current method of establishing funding requirements across the FYDP to provide a stabile "buy profile" of whatever it is you are buying...perhaps this is intended to prevent programers from reallocating funding between programs. BTW: Story out this week from Canada stating they are considering canceling the CH-148 (S-92) program...Acft is years behind schedule and Sikorsky asking for an additional $500 million to cover cost overruns. Hum...S-92 not working our for the Canucks...VH-71 over weight, behind schedule and over budget...Perhaps the USAF CSAR-X source selection team's finding of greater risk for these two vendors was indeed correct. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Best quote about the CSAR-X I've read in a while: "Procuring the HH-47 for the CSAR mission makes as much sense as entering a Winnebago in a NASCAR race," said John Guilmartin, a retired Air Force pilot with two Southeast Asia combat tours flying "Jolly Green" HH-3E and CH-53 rescue helicopters. http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,1...C=airforce-a.nl second best quote, found in the discussion forum linked at the bottom of the article: Scenario: I'm a crewmember on the ground "somewhere behind the lines". SAR teams are on their way as I reach the pickup point. Benefit of the H-47...lots of room in the fuselage for comfort items, like a Starbucks, full medical staff, a 10-man Fire Team to protect me, the commander to give me a medal, and Air Force Band of the West to escort me off the chopper once we return. It's fast in and fast out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alfonso Constantinople Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 second best quote, found in the discussion forum linked at the bottom of the article: QUOTE Scenario: I'm a crewmember on the ground "somewhere behind the lines". SAR teams are on their way as I reach the pickup point. Benefit of the H-47...lots of room in the fuselage for comfort items, like a Starbucks, full medical staff, a 10-man Fire Team to protect me, the commander to give me a medal, and Air Force Band of the West to escort me off the chopper once we return. It's fast in and fast out. That's so good it inspired this long-time listener to be a first-time caller. But weren't those the new requirements laid out in amendment 13 to the RFP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jollygreen Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) Best quote about the CSAR-X I've read in a while... Best quote I've heard concerning the CSAR-X program. "A starving man is looking for something to eat. One company offers a hamburger. Another, a steak. And a third, a turkey leg. As the three of them go about arguing which the man should take, a whimper cries out from behind ... ‘I just want something to eat’." And that is the current state of the CSAR-X program. Any of the three contenders would do well. Right now, I could care less which is chosen ... Edited June 22, 2008 by Jollygreen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Thread Revival, looks like another year or so of delay... I give up, can we at least fix the Hawk then? CSAR-X Delay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JorryFright21 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Big surprise! I'll wait a little while still before I hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeyore Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Well that was totally par for the course. I would venture a guess that if OB ticket wins it will be longer than a year. As for upgrades to Pavehawk, it will be up to those advocates working at Air Staff to sneak in and procure dollars from programs on the vine as well and more importantly guard their dollars from attack. I'd say wish in one hand and spit in the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now