Clayton Bigsby Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 ^ So, that appears to have the same engines as the H-60. If a lack of power is the issue for the HH-60, how does making the helicopter larger (heavier) with the same engines solve anything? Or is it a better rotor/dynamic system that gets more lift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cell Dweller Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 ^ So, that appears to have the same engines as the H-60. If a lack of power is the issue for the HH-60, how does making the helicopter larger (heavier) with the same engines solve anything? Or is it a better rotor/dynamic system that gets more lift? Google found out that the engines on the S-92 are improved versions in the T700/CT7 family. Depending on their configuration, the HH-60G gets about 1,900 SHP per engine, whereas the S-92 gets about 2,500 SHP per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RescueRandy Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) "The Air Force plans include leveraging in-production air vehicles and training systems while integrating existing technologies to deliver this new combat capability." Just sayin'... Edited October 24, 2012 by Hella-Copters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Current production S-92s are sporting the CT7-8A, with nearly 2700shp (T/O) each. The CH-148 will (eventually) get the -8A7, with close to 3000shp each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 "The Air Force plans include leveraging in-production air vehicles and training systems while integrating existing technologies to deliver this new combat capability." Just sayin'... The requirement isn't for a lower FMC rate... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 The V-22 is an absolutely horrible choice for the PR mission. For a number a reasons that I'm sure most of you are already aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddhaSixFour Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 "The Air Force plans include leveraging in-production air vehicles and training systems while integrating existing technologies to deliver this new combat capability." Just sayin'... The V-22 is an absolutely horrible choice for the PR mission. For a number a reasons that I'm sure most of you are already aware of. Hella - I'm with you, but its not a winnable fight on an internet forum. Just keep building the V-22 community and win the debate with actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 The V-22 is a great choice for PR for some situations, and a terrible choice for PR in others. The bottom line is that we need to have a capability to ensure that any pink body that is at risk has a chance of getting home if shit goes pear shaped. PR is a core function, if shit goes bad are you prepared to step up and make sure that you've done everything possible to make sure your bro gets home? If your answer is those Sandy/Jolly/Other Rescue guys will take care of it, well your shit is probably in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usaf36031 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 It seems like any possible platform will have strengths and weaknesses. If your survivor is 500 miles away and in the open desert, then sure, send in the Ospreys. If he's in the ocean at night, needs to be hoisted, or is in a small LZ....Maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slackline Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 The V-22 is a great choice for PR for some situations, and a terrible choice for PR in others. The bottom line is that we need to have a capability to ensure that any pink body that is at risk has a chance of getting home if shit goes pear shaped. PR is a core function, if shit goes bad are you prepared to step up and make sure that you've done everything possible to make sure your bro gets home? If your answer is those Sandy/Jolly/Other Rescue guys will take care of it, well your shit is probably in the street. Other than a benign situation that is real far away, what is the V-22 a great choice for? I was in ABQ when the fV-22 got its first "rescue". You know what it did? Fly really fast to the general area and orbit because it couldn't land over 8,000'. In the meantime, albeit much slower, a Pavehawk that was stripped of unnecessary equipment landed at 11,000' to infil the J's and recover the unfortunate crash victims. There's not enough equipment to strip on a V-22 to make landing at 11,000' feasible. I will agree with you loosely that it could be a great choice in very specific situations, but (and I'm pulling this number out of my arse) 85% of the time it's a horrible choice. It would be a great FOB to FOB medevac option because of the speed, but sorry, I'm not buying it for anything else. The HH-47 was a bad choice because of its size, but it's about 10x better than the V-22. Just my $.02. I don't expect anyone to agree with it, but please explain why and for what it would make a great choice. Not picking a fight, and I apologize if I came off that way. That wasn't my intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Other than a benign situation that is real far away, what is the V-22 a great choice for? I was in ABQ when the fV-22 got its first "rescue". You know what it did? Fly really fast to the general area and orbit because it couldn't land over 8,000'. In the meantime, albeit much slower, a Pavehawk that was stripped of unnecessary equipment landed at 11,000' to infil the J's and recover the unfortunate crash victims. There's not enough equipment to strip on a V-22 to make landing at 11,000' feasible. I will agree with you loosely that it could be a great choice in very specific situations, but (and I'm pulling this number out of my arse) 85% of the time it's a horrible choice. It would be a great FOB to FOB medevac option because of the speed, but sorry, I'm not buying it for anything else. The HH-47 was a bad choice because of its size, but it's about 10x better than the V-22. Just my $.02. I don't expect anyone to agree with it, but please explain why and for what it would make a great choice. Not picking a fight, and I apologize if I came off that way. That wasn't my intention. I wonder why no one is talking about the CH-53K. http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/Attachments/Mission%20Downloads/CH-53K_MissionBrief.pdf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slackline Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 It's one of the same reasons the Chinook winning bid was challenged. Is a heavy lift helo, not a medium lift. Maybe they'll change the wording this time around. It's awfully big. Maybe there are some old Pavelow guys that could better speak to this being good/bad for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Other than a benign situation that is real far away, 85% of the time it's a horrible choice. You already said it, a relatively uncontested LZ and the farther away the more it favors the V-22. Keep in mind PR is not just CSAR. I'm not saying a V-22 is an appropriate replacement for the 60, but it fits very well into the Air Force's core function of PR it just happens to be in AFSOC which means it's masters consider it a SOF asset, not a PR asset. It's one of the same reasons the Chinook winning bid was challenged. Is a heavy lift helo, not a medium lift. But had nothing to do with why the GAO upheld the protest, the AF fucked up their accounting based on what they said in the RFP. The UH-60 is a medium lift aircraft, the combat ready HH-60G really isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Sounds like what we really need is a updated CH-3 jolly green, bigger than a HH-60 and smaller than a CH-47 or CH-53 that is able to operate at 8000 to 14000 feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slackline Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 But had nothing to do with why the GAO upheld the protest, the AF ######ed up their accounting based on what they said in the RFP. The UH-60 is a medium lift aircraft, the combat ready HH-60G really isn't. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 So an s-92 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Other than a benign situation that is real far away, what is the V-22 a great choice for?...There's not enough equipment to strip on a V-22 to make landing at 11,000' feasible. You're thinking too Afghanistan-specific. Where else in the world are we needing PR at 11K, let alone above 8K? It's our main conflict right now, but if we're talking future capes you have to think of future conflicts because for today's war, we're stuck with what we have right now. It would be a great FOB to FOB medevac option because of the speed, but sorry, I'm not buying it for anything else. Think of a place that's HUGE and doesn't have almost any friendly military bases or a ton of heavy fighting and will likely be the site of a good number of future U.S. military actions. That's a place where the V-22 might be a good PR (vice CSAR) choice. Not that I know anyone who loves the V-22, but still, speed is key over continent-sized distances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Where else in the world are we needing PR at 11K, let alone above 8K? It's our main conflict right now, but if we're talking future capes you have to think of future conflicts because for today's war, we're stuck with what we have right now. Good call...probably wouldn't see too many other high altitude places needing CSAR/PR in the future. Oh wait a minute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That's assuming you think we'll be putting boots on the ground in Iran anytime soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That's assuming you think we'll be putting boots on the ground in Iran anytime soon The CRH IOC won't be until around FY19...so I don't know what will happen in 6+ years. But to also address your question...if a fighter guy bails out over bad guy land, we go and we get him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 The CRH IOC won't be until around FY19...so I don't know what will happen in 6+ years. But to also address your question...if a fighter guy bails out over bad guy land, we go and we get him. Yea, valid...Iran is pretty f-ing mountainous. Another reason we should stay the F out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Yea, valid...Iran is pretty f-ing mountainous. Another reason we should stay the F out of there. Agreed on that one...however I hear the B-2 is quite nice at dropping heavy bombs that could destroy Iranian 'special' targets. Full disclosure--I am far from a fighter/bomber guy, so please accept my ignorance if I am completely out of touch on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Yea, valid...Iran is pretty f-ing mountainous. Another reason we should stay the F out of there. There are are many reasons to stay out of there. That is absolutely not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slackline Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 You're thinking too Afghanistan-specific. Where else in the world are we needing PR at 11K, let alone above 8K? It's our main conflict right now, but if we're talking future capes you have to think of future conflicts because for today's war, we're stuck with what we have right now. Yeah, you're right. Lets pretend that we'll never need that capability again and plan for the easiest route. The Army has helos that can do it, and they love stopping their operations to go pick up some downed Airman... Can you honestly say that with our potential threats out there I'm basing this on Afghanistan? Quite a big assumption on your part. We have AR for no FOB's in between. V-22 defensive caps don't come close to even the min caps of our Pavehawk. Once again, benign is the only situation for a V-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 anybody who thinks a CFACC in his right mind would send an asset into anything higher than a moderate threat environment without some sort of escort is sorely mistaken. History says you are wrong. But it's all a moot point, an HV-22 is completely beyond the budget for CRH. 1 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