CSAR-X

[craino21]

Our SQ/CC told us that the CSAR-X will be announced tomorrow, and since there are a number of fellow -60 guys on here figured I'd start a thread about it. General feeling around our squadron is that it will be the -47, which has met with pretty general disapproval.

[Guest Jollygreen]

No inside information ... however ...

Date that was provided for release by A8 was the 10th but they are trying to move it up to the 9th.

In order, best guesses are:

US101

HH47

HH92

Reason for calling the 101 ...

1. (most important) It is actually the best airframe for the mission. 101 has great power, plenty of room, and a unique blade that helps to cut back on brownout. 47 is too big and too difficult to deploy. 92, well, basically, falls short in many areas (too bad, I love Sikorsky).

2. To have at least some sort of log base out there for the 23 USMC VH-101s (or whatever it will be called).

3. The announcement was held off until after the election. 101 isn't seen as a US product (political bomb). 101 isn't made in CT, thus bad for Lieberman who sits in good standing with the administration.

I thought it was going to be the 47 since it had most of block 10 mod engineering completed, but changed my mind after the announcement was delayed until post election.

[Guest PilotKD]

Hopefully it's the -47 or my wife is out of a job!

I had thought the -47 had the advantage as far as deployability, being able to fit in a C-5. Will the 101 fit in a C-5 also?

[ 08. November 2006, 18:19: Message edited by: PilotKD ]

[Guest croftfam]

Jolly, are you kidding about the blade's magical brown out countering ability? I don't know anyone who believes that crap! So, if it pushes the dust and dirt and sand out so as to not cause a brown out, are you going to have a true IGE hover?

I hope it's not the 47, but unfortunately that is probably what it will be. They're going to go with the 47 because it is already all over every theater and will therefore be easy to get parts for. It's huge (good and bad) so the air force is going to try to salvage what they can of the 53's mission with it. CSAR will unfortunately become the spec ops platform for the Air Force. Just my $.02. I don't want to fly it though because of many of those reasons. Enormous size means limited LZ's for insertion, meaning more time in hovers, which means more time in a vulnerable position above tree lines, ridges, roof tops, whatever. It also makes one heck of a target. What is getting shot down over there? 47's. I should explain that that has almost as much to do with the Army's lack of tactical flying as it does the size of the 47 though.

The 101 is a Mx nightmare, it's not a US based company, and it's probe is a piece of garbage.

The 92 doesn't have as much power as the 101 or the 47, but it meets the requirements. It has plenty of room, and what's best, the smallest footprint meaning we can still get into small LZ's. The 92 is also the only fly-by-wire airframe in the competition, and is easily maintainable. Oh yeah, way cheaper than either of the other two.

Jolly, don't take my post as an attack. I just reread it, and realized it could be taken that way. Just trying to get discussion going.

[ 08. November 2006, 20:45: Message edited by: JorryFright21 ]

[dmeg130]

C'mon Jorry, you can do this:

The pisser for us would be now each receiver takes 20K worth of gas (x2=8 hours of flight time) and takes 20 minutes to refuel.

[bucky60k]

Are the USAF Hueys next on the chopping block? Since the Army just went with the EC (UH) 145 does that mean we'll be looking for a new LUH or are the N models going to stay around for awhile?

[HeloDude]

Originally posted by bucky60k:

Are the USAF Hueys next on the chopping block? Since the Army just went with the EC (UH) 145 does that mean we'll be looking for a new LUH or are the N models going to stay around for awhile?

There's been talk about replacing the N models for a quite while. I know what has been thrown around here was to replace the N models with the Huey 2's. Unfortunately I'd be willing to bet that the N model will be hanging around for a while for this main reason: They don't deploy, and for what we use them for, they work.

As for the discussion of what will replace the 60...I'm thinking the 101 (which would be my first choice for the reasons already noted). In my opinion, if the Air Force was all about purchasing 47's with the idea that they will also be used as a SOF platform, then they would have never moved all the CSAR units back into ACC.

[craino21]

There has also been talk of replacing the N models w/ a decontented version of CSAR-X, which would streamline training and give CSAR guys a break from deployments w/ a stateside tour... but good luck getting the money for that, and in a lot of cases, particularly the -47 it's probably too much, and too big an aircraft for the job.

[busdriver]

dmeg, just imagine how much gas we'd be sucking ifthe AF buys the chubby cheeks conformal aux tanks..... come on you know they will, hell we'd be carrying a fleet of armored buggies and about 50 pjs on every sortie if we got the 47

[Guest Stearmann4]

If it happens, I think you guys will love the MH/HH-47G overseas. It's my personal feeling that Boeing/Vertol won't be able to deliver in a timely fashion. They can't even get our MH-47Gs to us without a whole slew of software and quality control problems. Rockwell Collins has a good idea, but the software right now is a nightmare. Plus, Boeing's already trying to field the CH-47F to the regular Army as well. The line is beyond max capacity.

[dmeg130]

Nice! We'll have to figure out a way to suck gas back up the hoses when we start getting low... or we'll just have to get more UARSSI mods. Then we can ***** about the tanker MX cancelling, too!

Hope the conversion to whatever they pick goes well. You guys do great work.

[Eeyore]

Well I think that the S-92 is the winner. Just because of political reasons. Remember that US101 helps the New york area out as well a Sen Clinton. Army is going to purchase more 47's for losses in OIF/OEF. Additionally, Sikorsky has history on its side for CSAR. Whatever aircraft is picked, I'll wager the AF will add more unique equipment to the aircraft and it will once again either be under powered or cubed out internal space wise. As for the Huey's in Space they do not want to pay the infrastructure price for new CSAR-X. They also won't take the best remaining H-60's and replace the 185 tanks with 200 gal tank and remove the probe. They will continue to waffle like the last past 15 years. Additionally, with the closure of Fairchild in Sep of 07; AETC will not jump on huey replacement bandwagon either. So the stateside unit will still be flyin the N's for a while. Just my .02.

[Guest PilotKD]

It'll be the -47. Just got the word from a friend at Boeing in Philly who was in the room for the phone call.

[craino21]

It's official, press release confirms, HH-47...

[Guest Jollygreen]

There is an AF press release that states the selection was the HH-47. Can't find the link. COMACC put an e-mail out saying the same thing.

No problems Jorry. But the blades do reduce the amount of brown out.

The H-47 had the least risk (MH-47 is nearly Block 10 as is) and the comments above about an established log base are very true.

The size, downwash, and difficulty in deploying via airlift are considerable problems for the 47. But the greatly improved power, cabin space, range, and a helicopter that has already completed system testing (probe, defensive systems, etc) are definate benefits.

I would add that the fact the PJs won't be yelling for the need for more room/gear is a plus, but my guess they'll want standard mission equipment to now include 2 quads and a fully inflated Zodiac on every flight ... so they'll cube it out again in no time.

[ 09. November 2006, 17:40: Message edited by: Jollygreen ]

[Guest croftfam]

Originally posted by Jollygreen:

I would add that the fact the PJs won't be yelling for the need for more room/gear is a plus, but my guess they'll want standard mission equipment to now include 2 quads and a fully inflated Zodiac on every flight ... so they'll cube it out again in no time.

Exactly. Out here at Kadena they'll probably have 2 quads, 2 jet skis, and a zodiac, and they'll probably bump the standard team numbers up. So much for extra space. Oh well, two palm trees humping a dumpster it is...

[Guest GTPilot]

AF Press Release

https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123031640

[Guest Stearmann4]

Wil this mean eventual replacement of the Pavehawks in the Guard/Reserve inventory as well?

[Guest croftfam]

No expert in any way, but I can't see them not replacing them. We currently only have 100ish 60's in the inventory, and they're replacing them with 141 47's (like that number will remain the same). Unsure though.

[Guest DangerousLT]

Ok, I know you guys in rescue aren't too keen about this decision, but I just have to say it is kick ass. Sure, there's a lot of friendly rivalry between CSAR and spec ops, but combining the two into the 47 is a damned good idea, short of buying us new 53E's. For one, I was under the impression you guys spent too much time on alert (not a lot of ejections nowadays).

I'm stoked about this. Now, the real question to be asked is how long it will take to get these babies online. Funny thing, rumor has it the Army's SOAR has a whole ramp full of these biatches with not enough pilots to fill them. Hmmmm.... any comments on this, Stearmann? I know a lot of Pavelow guys looking for work in 2 years!

[craino21]

I'm not too particularly bent out of shape about this... is this the perfect airframe, no, but neither were either of the others. I don't think anyone would argue that the -60 is either, so we'll take the -47 and do a damn good job with it just like we did/do with the -60. I also agree that we'll pick up more spec ops missions with the -47 and like Skids down said sometimes alert needs a little spicing up, I know some of our missions we're flying in afghanistan right now aren't traditional CSAR but it's been nice.

[Guest Jollygreen]

Originally posted by Skids Down:

Ok, I know you guys in rescue aren't too keen about this decision, but I just have to say it is kick ass. Sure, there's a lot of friendly rivalry between CSAR and spec ops, but combining the two into the 47 is a damned good idea, short of buying us new 53E's. For one, I was under the impression you guys spent too much time on alert (not a lot of ejections nowadays).

I'm stoked about this. Now, the real question to be asked is how long it will take to get these babies online. Funny thing, rumor has it the Army's SOAR has a whole ramp full of these biatches with not enough pilots to fill them. Hmmmm.... any comments on this, Stearmann? I know a lot of Pavelow guys looking for work in 2 years!

Not sure where you got your read on what rescue does or does not like. A bit presumptuous for an outsider to give an opinion on what “you guys in rescue” think about the aircraft.

I, as someone who is actually in Rescue, like the HH-47 (and the other candidates for the CSAR-X). The capacity and range alone is an improvement. Of course the same could be said about the 92 and 101 and either of those would have been an improvement over the HH-60. But I must admit, the high altitude OGE power of the H-47 is impressive compared to the other candidates for the CSAR-X. The only downfall of the HH-47 is the footprint.

As for buying more 53Es, not sure why we would waste the money. AFSOC is out of the helicopter business. That was the decision by their commander, Gen Brown. The V-22 may prove worthwhile however, so good luck on that endeavor.

As for Rescue sitting alert, over 170 Saves in OEF since January. What has the PaveLow done lately?

[dmeg130]

Gen Brown just briefed us here that SOCOM is adding West Coast -47 and -60 battalions, so I don't think the HH-47 will be tapped too much for SOF missions.

Speaking as a -130 guy in rescue, I'd say the -47 pushes us back into the more traditional tanker role, as the speed and range of the -47 reduce the utility of us dropping PJs or doing a transload. Its ceiling also reduces the need for low-altitude HAR. We'll see how this all shakes out.

Will it be a "Pave Hook"?

[Guest Stearmann4]

Originally posted by dmeg130:

Gen Brown just briefed us here that SOCOM is adding West Coast -47 and -60 battalions, so I don't think the HH-47 will be tapped too much for SOF missions.

The west coast battalion is already operational with MH-47Gs, with 60Ms scheduled to stand up in FY 07. And yes, as of right now we are getting an acft about one every 2 months from the factory. The original contract was for around 54 acft, in addition to the twenty-something MH-47D/Es already in service. This by far more acft than we have crews for. We've had to schedule periodic ground runs even though most of the pilots have been flying 4-5 days a week in CONUS. With big green's OPTEMPO, we don't always have success getting the quality pilots to fill all the crews. The Regiment would probably welcome some orphaned Pavelow guys...

Lastly, the AF may very well get a better variant of the MH-47, due the lessons learned and lumps we've encountered already. I guarantee you will love the power, we just got back from a western US trip doing pinnacles/aft gear infils in excess of 13,000 with OGE power to spare!

[Guest croftfam]

Originally posted by dmeg130:

Will it be a "Pave Hook"?

That's actually the word that is going around already.