CSAR-X

[craino21]

a big friggin target.

Yeah, but it's not like the other options are the size of a -58. Yes the -47 is the largest of the 3 options, but not by as much as everyone likes to think. All 3 of these are big ass helicopters. Of course I think we should go for a really big helicopter and just buy a few MI-12s.

[JarheadBoom]

Kilo H-53 anyone ??

Would be sweet. But it's bigger/more powerful/more expensive than what the AF seems to want. Of course, the RFP may change again...

[M2]

Updates...

CSAR-X Do-Over: The Air Force's top civilian acquisition official confirmed Thursday that the service is seeking another go-around for the troubled combat search and rescue helicopter replacement program. Sue Payton told Pentagon reporters that calls are being made to the original bidders and to Congress to ensure everyone understands where the program stands now. Payton said USAF hopes to post a draft version of "amendment five" to the original request for proposals by Oct. 20 and a final version by early November. The door is open now, unlike the last makeover when USAF limited contractor proposals. Payton said, "It's a full and open input on anything they would like to propose." She wants to have contractor proposals in hand before Christmas. However, Payton emphasized, "We are not going to rush to an award." She plans to have more feedback sessions than in the original competition, and there will be some new people involved in the source selection process (see below). Although Payton would like to award the CSAR-X contract in early spring, she said it would depend on what the bidders bring to the table-new designs or platform improvements. Payton acknowledged that a 2014 initial operational capability date now is more likely than the original 2012 date.

-Marc V. Schanz

...and...

Army and Navy Joining CSAR-X Selection?: Things will be different in this CSAR-X go-around (see above), the Air Force's senior acquisition official Sue Payton said Thursday. She told Pentagon reporters: "I'm very pleased that we have great support from the Army and the Navy. They will be helping us with the source selection." This appears to be a growing trend. Payton likened the assist from other service acquisition personnel to the Army-Air Force work on the Joint Cargo Aircraft program and other work the Air Force has done on Navy acquisition efforts. "We're doing some cross-fertilization here," Payton said, adding that the Navy and Army have excellent domain knowledge on helicopters, so will be able to leverage that in the selection process.

Cheers! M2

[StoleIt]

We just had a CCT Capt in for some Q/A Thursday. I asked him about his opinion on the CSAR-X and he said his vote was for the -47...I don't care what I've read about any platform I'll take his word that the -47 is the best for the job out of the 3.

[Guest JorryFright21]

We just had a CCT Capt in for some Q/A Thursday. I asked him about his opinion on the CSAR-X and he said his vote was for the -47...I don't care what I've read about any platform I'll take his word that the -47 is the best for the job out of the 3.

Never take the word of a CCT or a PJ for what would be the best for the flying part of the CSAR mission. Of course they want the -47 in order to throw more crap in the back. I can honestly say that I don't know a single pilot that wants the -47. I know a lot who accepted that it was going to be the most likely winner due to politics. It is too big for the mission that we fly. Again, I'm sure you will find some CSAR guys out there that think it is the best, but I don't know 'em. Of course I don't know all the pilots out there either. PJ's and CCT want to put ATV's, bikes, and anything else they can fit in there, that's why the -47 is the "best" for them. They take care of the stuff on the ground, we take care of getting them in there safely. Either the -92 or the -101 could do that, and we don't have the enormous size to deal with, and people can still stand up in the back of both of those, so all our backenders will be happy.

Once again, I'm not the last word on this subject, but for the most part this is what I've heard the most when people in the rescue community are talking about CSAR-X.

[Guest rotorhead]

Jorry is not far off the mark. If there is one cubic foot of space, someone will fill it with something. 47s will provide ample space to fill with stuff, from ATVs to EWOs to LMs to NAVs to Command Centers. I haven't been poisoned by the coolaid that it is mandatory to stand up in the back of a helicopter that is tasked to pick up a 1-2 pilot downing.

My answer, which has 0% chance of coming to fruition, is to handle CSAR just like the other parcels...

We don't have just F-22, we have F16, F15; we don't just have B-52, we have B1, B117; and HOW many 130 types does the USAF have?

Put 47s in a few units so the boys that like toys can put em in the back, and perhaps for the North Atlantic rescue of 20 folks off a boat 300 miles out to sea. Get 60M platforms with appropriate mods for most other missions. With the right tanks and gun mounts, they'd be awesome, and they can be sent worldwide very quickly. Have both capabilities, divided sensibly (AD, ANG, AFRES) and the missions can get done. And don't anyone jump on the bandwagon that we can't buy only 70 of each of two types...they're doing a similar buy number for CV-22, and it's not like there won't be parts...the Army and Navy will have a zillion parts for their similar 60M/R/S and the Army has 47s. Buy both, assign properly, shut up, press on.

Edited October 7, 2007 by rotorhead

[dmeg130]

Well, at least we won't have to carry ALL the PJs junk around any more!

I've never flown a helo, so I won't presume to know what the best choice really is. Money is THE big driver here. Multiple airframes is a sure no-go -- need another schoolhouse squadron, HQ and WIC division, etc. The CV-22 is a small buy for us, but the USMC is getting 400+. The HH-47 provided a readily available platform with an existing HAR capability. If the Marine One H-71 had a probe, maybe it'd have a better shot. The original proposal did not comply with the DoD directive to solicit joint input for the possibility of common use. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that the -60 is too small (and the 60G is too underpowered) for the missions that we've been doing in GWOT.

I personally find it hard to believe that we're buying 141 airframes to support Moseley's "moral imperative" that we rescue the 2 guys that get shot down every ten years (not to mention the possibility of buying the HC-130J) while non-vol-ing guys to Preds and PC-12s. Sorry, but the narrow mission constraints that the Chief wants us operating in cannot possibly justify the purchase of CSAR-specific equipment over other priorities (i.e. KC-X). If he wants to take the leash off and let us support the combatant commander instead of sitting around with our collective thumbs up our asses while waiting for the CFACC to lose one of his precious planes, then by all means, let's buy some new aircraft. But the numbers (loss rates, theater utilization rates) don't add up. And don't scream "China!" either. Even if we did lose planes in a double digit SAM ring, we sure as hell aren't going to send a couple CSAR-X in to get shot down too.

Your skills are being wasted by leadership who has no idea what you can do with your helicopter.

[Guest SATCOM]

Never take the word of a CCT or a PJ for what would be the best for the flying part of the CSAR mission. Of course they want the -47 in order to throw more crap in the back.

You are correct! Try flying in the back of a MH-60 for 11 hours with ten other dudes plus all their shit! Last time I did it was comical. Feet dangling out the side for hours and when we landed, I stood up and promptly fell, face first on the runway (legs/feet turned numb and almost froze). Everybody looked like Ninja Turtles with all that crap on. I digress though, it's just time to make a selection and proceed with the mission.

[Guest JorryFright21]

You are correct! Try flying in the back of a MH-60 for 11 hours with ten other dudes plus all their shit! Last time I did it was comical. Feet dangling out the side for hours and when we landed, I stood up and promptly fell, face first on the runway (legs/feet turned numb and almost froze). Everybody looked like Ninja Turtles with all that crap on. I digress though, it's just time to make a selection and proceed with the mission.

I definitely agree that the 60 is too small for all the stuff we try to stuff in the back of it.

[Guest Curt22]

Never take the word of a CCT or a PJ for what would be the best for the flying part of the CSAR mission. Of course they want the -47 in order to throw more crap in the back. I can honestly say that I don't know a single pilot that wants the -47. I know a lot who accepted that it was going to be the most likely winner due to politics. It is too big for the mission that we fly. Again, I'm sure you will find some CSAR guys out there that think it is the best, but I don't know 'em. Of course I don't know all the pilots out there either. PJ's and CCT want to put ATV's, bikes, and anything else they can fit in there, that's why the -47 is the "best" for them. They take care of the stuff on the ground, we take care of getting them in there safely. Either the -92 or the -101 could do that, and we don't have the enormous size to deal with, and people can still stand up in the back of both of those, so all our backenders will be happy.

Once again, I'm not the last word on this subject, but for the most part this is what I've heard the most when people in the rescue community are talking about CSAR-X.

1 - Agreed, while CSAR-X could be called a "PJ Delivery Vehicle"...aside from the PTA, there is little call for requirements or opinions from the "Pax"

2 - As for not knowing anyone who wants the H-47...maybe so, but I suspect you know a few who "want" an acft that meets or exceeds the requirements set forth by the CSAR community in range, speed, performance...

3 - This issue isn't how BIG or small on or another is, The CSAR-X requirements have little to do with the mission you fly today (as you state above)...If we wanted to fly the same mission...we need do nothing more than to SLEP the current H-60's...the issue is which machine can best meet your new more ambitious requirements of greater range, altitude etc.

4 - But if you do want think about size for a minute, tis true the 47 is longer tip to tail than the others, but also true that the 101 MR diameter is WIDER @ 61' than the H-47 @ 59'...so when thinking about LZs…one needs to considered size from all perspectives (literally).

[Guest Curt22]

Jorry is not far off the mark. If there is one cubic foot of space, someone will fill it with something. 47s will provide ample space to fill with stuff, from ATVs to EWOs to LMs to NAVs to Command Centers. I haven't been poisoned by the coolaid that it is mandatory to stand up in the back of a helicopter that is tasked to pick up a 1-2 pilot downing.

My answer, which has 0% chance of coming to fruition, is to handle CSAR just like the other parcels...

We don't have just F-22, we have F16, F15; we don't just have B-52, we have B1, B117; and HOW many 130 types does the USAF have?

Put 47s in a few units so the boys that like toys can put em in the back, and perhaps for the North Atlantic rescue of 20 folks off a boat 300 miles out to sea. Get 60M platforms with appropriate mods for most other missions. With the right tanks and gun mounts, they'd be awesome, and they can be sent worldwide very quickly. Have both capabilities, divided sensibly (AD, ANG, AFRES) and the missions can get done. And don't anyone jump on the bandwagon that we can't buy only 70 of each of two types...they're doing a similar buy number for CV-22, and it's not like there won't be parts...the Army and Navy will have a zillion parts for their similar 60M/R/S and the Army has 47s. Buy both, assign properly, shut up, press on.

Haven't been poisoned by the Kool-Aid…!!! LOL But it is a 'requirement' for CSAR-X to have a larger, taller cabin.

You are right, ALL acft will gain weight as time goes by, so which acft should the USAF buy...one that is marginal at meeting the spec mission today, or one that has tons of excess payload (Power) to accommodate future systems without compromising the mission requirements.

As for split fleet, sorry, but it's just not a wise execution of tax payer dollars...it sounds good to have larger and smaller machines but we don’t need some lesser capable second class RQS force. The "total force" should be equally trained, equipped and organized so they may be able to completely integrate and assimilate with all RQS forces, Active, Gaurd or Res to operate seamlessly.

As to "parts"...when one buys an aircraft they are required to buy all spares needed to support themselves...that said, there is an economy of scale if "buying into" a platform already in service with little or no R&D costs...Like the H-60's, the US Army has hundreds of H-47's in service with several hundred more in use by FMS and civil operators, so your argument for commonality reducing cost of ownership is just as true of the H-47 platform as it is for the H-60.

[busdriver]

The rotors turning length of a 47 is 99 ft, trying to claim that the 101 is comparable since it's rotor diameter is 2 feet larger is disingenuous at best.

At max gross weight and standard day, the OGE hover ceiling of a 47 is 5500ft, the 92 is 6700ft. I'll admit this is a bit misleading, since the 47 would be operating at a smaller percentage of it's max gross on any given mission.

The 47 only gains a range advantage by loading up with internal aux tanks.

I'm not saying I dislike the 47, but it's not a silver bullet.

I don't really know what the right answer is, as I'm not privy to the proposals. (above numbers are from manufacturer websites)

[Guest JorryFright21]

Haven't been poisoned by the Kool-Aid…!!! LOL But it is a 'requirement' for CSAR-X to have a larger, taller cabin.

You are right, ALL acft will gain weight as time goes by, so which acft should the USAF buy...one that is marginal at meeting the spec mission today, or one that has tons of excess payload (Power) to accommodate future systems without compromising the mission requirements.

As for split fleet, sorry, but it's just not a wise execution of tax payer dollars...it sounds good to have larger and smaller machines but we don’t need some lesser capable second class RQS force. The "total force" should be equally trained, equipped and organized so they may be able to completely integrate and assimilate with all RQS forces, Active, Gaurd or Res to operate seamlessly.

As to "parts"...when one buys an aircraft they are required to buy all spares needed to support themselves...that said, there is an economy of scale if "buying into" a platform already in service with little or no R&D costs...Like the H-60's, the US Army has hundreds of H-47's in service with several hundred more in use by FMS and civil operators, so your argument for commonality reducing cost of ownership is just as true of the H-47 platform as it is for the H-60.

Okay dude, time to state why anyone should listen to a word your saying. Remember this is an internet forum, so we're all weery of posers. Do you fly, maintain, intel, what? Your attempts at using flowery speech and some key words just doesn't cut it, especially when your grammar and what not sucks.

EDIT: Forgot about your horrible attempt at saying the 101's rotor disk was bigger.

[Clayton Bigsby]

Are the H-92's engines the exact same as the H-60's? They sure look it...

[busdriver]

The engines on the 60, 92 and the 101 are derivatives of the original T700 engine on the Blackhawk and the Apache. The 92/101's engines (CT7-8A) produce 2520shp each versus 1940shp in the Pavehawk (T700-701C).

[Guest Jollygreen]

Fact, we had a mission in the ABQ area recently...the V-22 found the crash site! Rah!!!

But the V-22 couldn't land and check the site due to the landing area's altitude. They had to wait for the HH-60 to show up and drop off the PJs.

The V-22 sucks as a Rescue platform. It may be great to show up there first...but if you can't finish the job (sts) then you are useless.

Side note; the HH-47, US101, or S-92(maybe) can all do the mission better then the Pavehawk. I've flown the M/HH-60 since 1987, love it, but would be happy to swap to another CSAR platform...if it can do the bloody job.

Just pick one for God's sake.

[Guest JorryFright21]

Fact, we had a mission in the ABQ area recently...the V-22 found the crash site! Rah!!!

But the V-22 couldn't land and check the site due to the landing area's altitude. They had to wait for the HH-60 to show up and drop off the PJs.

The V-22 sucks as a Rescue platform. It may be great to show up there first...but if you can't finish the job (sts) then you are useless.

Side note; the HH-47, US101, or S-92(maybe) can all do the mission better then the Pavehawk. I've flown the M/HH-60 since 1987, love it, but would be happy to swap to another CSAR platform...if it can do the bloody job.

Just pick one for God's sake.

Funny thing is, to read the Kirtland paper, you'd think that without the V-22 the mission couldn't have been prosecuted. A buddy emailed me the article and a picture. Huge pic of the V-22, and its crew, with much a smaller pics of the 60 crew that actually landed at near 12,000'. That's some good flying to put a 60 on the ground at that altitude. Say what you want about how "amazing" the V-22 is, but when an underpowered, 700 engine, HH-60 outdoes it... well, I think that speaks for itself.

[Guest Curt22]

Okay dude, time to state why anyone should listen to a word your saying. Remember this is an internet forum, so we're all weery of posers. Do you fly, maintain, intel, what? Your attempts at using flowery speech and some key words just doesn't cut it, especially when your grammar and what not sucks.

EDIT: Forgot about your horrible attempt at saying the 101's rotor disk was bigger.

1 - EH-101 MR diameter is 61'...H-47 Rotor diameter is 59'...of course 47 overall length is near 100'!...but the rotor diameter is indeed nearly 2' smaller than the 101...(don't bitch at me, I didn't build the damn things!)

2 - My grammar sucks??? This is so hurtful coming from one who spells "wary"..."weery".

3 - What I do is not important to the subject I was responding too...Acft will gain weight over time, PJ requirements begin and end with the patient treatment area.

4 - A split fleet will never happen because its not economically or operationally sound. However, OSD agreed with you that it was worth looking at and directed a split fleet study be accomplished. The study was accomplished and validated that spending tens of billions of dollars to field a less capable portion of CSAR did nothing to relieve the LDHD state of the current fleet and the best solution was to buy a single type of acft that for all, that could achieve ALL of the new CSAR-X requirements of range, payload and performance.

[Guest JorryFright21]

1 - EH-101 MR diameter is 61'...H-47 Rotor diameter is 59'...of course 47 overall length is near 100'!...but the rotor diameter is indeed nearly 2' smaller than the 101...(don't bitch at me, I didn't build the damn things!)

2 - My grammar sucks??? This is so hurtful coming from one who spells "wary"..."weery".

3 - What I do is not important to the subject I was responding too...Acft will gain weight over time, PJ requirements begin and end with the patient treatment area.

1- That's the thing, your earlier post attempted to make the 101 seems bigger than the 47 simply based on RD. The footprint of the 47 is much bigger. That is what we were talking about.

2- Dang, I thought it was weird when I couldn't find "weery" in the dictionary.

3- You still sound like someone just trying to make everyone else think your opinion matters.

What needs to be remembered here is that most people posting in here are just putting out their opinions on what they think should happen. You are posting as if it is fact and that what you say must happen. That's why we question you.

[Guest Curt22]

1- That's the thing, your earlier post attempted to make the 101 seems bigger than the 47 simply based on RD. The footprint of the 47 is much bigger. That is what we were talking about.

2- Dang, I thought it was weird when I couldn't find "weery" in the dictionary.

3- You still sound like someone just trying to make everyone else think your opinion matters.

What needs to be remembered here is that most people posting in here are just putting out their opinions on what they think should happen. You are posting as if it is fact and that what you say must happen. That's why we question you.

I'm sorry ... don't want to give the wrong impression. I don't want anyone to think my opinion matters...Your right...I try to post "facts" and not opinion and think people should focus on the facts surrounding the program and leave the myth, rumor and personal prejudices at the door.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but its the facts of the program that matter most, operational requirements, financial constraints, schedule, politics (sad as it may be) are all characters in what has become a sad play at the expense of the operators.

The facts are: The USAF wants a new RQS acft, the USAF wrote a very ambitious set of requirements for the new acft, and members of the Air Force decided the H-47 would best meet these requirements. Another fact is GAO has upheld protests bases on failure to adequately explain life cycle cost methodology, and the USAF has issued RFP # 5 to readdress this issue in another round of proposals.

As for the opinion one machine might be too big...size alone is a minor requirement for CSAR-X. The new machine must meet hundreds of requirements established by the USAF such as greater range, payload etc.

It hasn't been fun watching this fiasco play out, but in "my opinion" the USAF folks made a wise choice based on the requirements the RQS bubbas established for themselves.

[Guest Curt22]

The rotors turning length of a 47 is 99 ft, trying to claim that the 101 is comparable since it's rotor diameter is 2 feet larger is disingenuous at best.

At max gross weight and standard day, the OGE hover ceiling of a 47 is 5500ft, the 92 is 6700ft. I'll admit this is a bit misleading, since the 47 would be operating at a smaller percentage of it's max gross on any given mission.

The 47 only gains a range advantage by loading up with internal aux tanks.

I'm not saying I dislike the 47, but it's not a silver bullet.

I don't really know what the right answer is, as I'm not privy to the proposals. (above numbers are from manufacturer websites)

Disingenuous??? Perhaps a little bit...but a lot of focus has been placed on the 99' length of the H-47, when in fact...there aren't a lot of LZ's that are less than 100' long and 60 wide...fact is that there comes a time when size is a problem for all acft and this counts for width of rotor diameter too.

I'm curious to the value of the OEM OGE rating you provide from some manufactures websites.

Did the websites provide the OGE capability in the USAF's "high-hot" definition?

Do you recall which engines/what model H-47 was used for the 5500 OGE?

-- The new G-model acft carry -714 engines (4868 SHP), vs the older -712 engines (3750 SHP)

-- I'd think nearly 2000 more SHP would result in better performance.

As for range... the new H-47G models come with "Fat Tanks" that carry 1000G of fuel each, eliminating the need for cabin tanks to extend range (H-47G spec's call out more than a 1000 mile range).

I know what you mean about marketing vs what a vendor is actually willing to promise in a proposal/contract...and why I prefer to trust in the judgment of the USAF members who reviewed the proposals and believe based on the data they reviewed they made the best choice for the USAF.

[busdriver]

Actually I can think of several LZ's that either I or friends have visited in the 60 that a 47 would never fit, nor would the 101. Does that mean I can't think of ways around that? Nope, I could have done those missions with the 47 just fine.

The OGE hover numbers I provided were ISA standard day from the respective manufacturer's website at max gross weight (26,500 lbs in the case of the 92, 54,000 in the case of the 47). The data for the 47 was taken from the MH-47E which does have the 714 engines. With the fat tanks the 47 carries 2,068 gallons (14k lbs) of fuel at a burn rate of about 3k per hour, giving you an out and back of about 300 miles. That's all from Boeing's website, I have no idea where you get the 1000nm range from. In any event, the range numbers for the 47 and the 92 are about the same and the speeds comparable at cruise (about 140). I haven't talked about the 101 since it's hover performance is significantly worse (HOGE at MGW of ~3500ft) as flown in Europe, and I can't find numbers for one fitted with the VH-71 engines (same as 92).

The problem with the 92 is it's size. There's only so much you can increase the gross weight of a given design without having longevity problems. How much will all the mission systems weigh? FLIR, Radar, DIRCM, EW Jammer, Probe, Armor, Guns w/ several thousand rounds of .50cal, MWS, Nav suite, etc. Add about 3000 pounds of team & equipment, now you've got how much available left over to pick people up? Now we bump up the range requirement for block 10, since space is limited you use external drop tanks, which hurts speeds and adds drag and ups the gross weight more. Is the 92 still viable after all that? I don't know, like I said I haven't seen the proposal numbers. But I know the 47 has plenty of space inside for aux tanks, and the power to carry plenty, and it already has all the electronics integrated for the 47G. I think ultimately the 101 and 92 would require a beefed up fuselage to handle the extra weight. The 92 since the max gross would have to go up a not insignificant amount, and the 101 because the fuselage was designed with less stringent crash ratings than the 92, I have no idea what the 47 is rated to.

The 92's advantage is its size. It's small, same footprint as a 60M and two fit in a C-17 (only one 47/101 fit). It's burns less fuel (costs less) is more modern (maintenance friendly) and built with flaw tolerance in mind. It's faster on the approach and almost as fast enroute. It would be an easier transition for aircrew and maintainers since it's based on the 60. It's also the right size for the common vertical lift program (economies of scale).

We would probably get more capability sooner with the 47 than the other two and would be less at risk of losing funding before we have the capability we need.

I'm sure someone more experienced like Eeyore has a bigger/better picture of the ramifications of all this, so take my rambling as just that.

[Guest Curt22]

Actually I can think of several LZ's that either I or friends have visited in the 60 that a 47 would never fit, nor would the 101. Does that mean I can't think of ways around that? Nope, I could have done those missions with the 47 just fine.

The OGE hover numbers I provided were ISA standard day from the respective manufacturer's website at max gross weight (26,500 lbs in the case of the 92, 54,000 in the case of the 47). The data for the 47 was taken from the MH-47E which does have the 714 engines. With the fat tanks the 47 carries 2,068 gallons (14k lbs) of fuel at a burn rate of about 3k per hour, giving you an out and back of about 300 miles. That's all from Boeing's website, I have no idea where you get the 1000nm range from. In any event, the range numbers for the 47 and the 92 are about the same and the speeds comparable at cruise (about 140). I haven't talked about the 101 since it's hover performance is significantly worse (HOGE at MGW of ~3500ft) as flown in Europe, and I can't find numbers for one fitted with the VH-71 engines (same as 92).

The problem with the 92 is it's size. There's only so much you can increase the gross weight of a given design without having longevity problems. How much will all the mission systems weigh? FLIR, Radar, DIRCM, EW Jammer, Probe, Armor, Guns w/ several thousand rounds of .50cal, MWS, Nav suite, etc. Add about 3000 pounds of team & equipment, now you've got how much available left over to pick people up? Now we bump up the range requirement for block 10, since space is limited you use external drop tanks, which hurts speeds and adds drag and ups the gross weight more. Is the 92 still viable after all that? I don't know, like I said I haven't seen the proposal numbers. But I know the 47 has plenty of space inside for aux tanks, and the power to carry plenty, and it already has all the electronics integrated for the 47G. I think ultimately the 101 and 92 would require a beefed up fuselage to handle the extra weight. The 92 since the max gross would have to go up a not insignificant amount, and the 101 because the fuselage was designed with less stringent crash ratings than the 92, I have no idea what the 47 is rated to.

The 92's advantage is its size. It's small, same footprint as a 60M and two fit in a C-17 (only one 47/101 fit). It's burns less fuel (costs less) is more modern (maintenance friendly) and built with flaw tolerance in mind. It's faster on the approach and almost as fast enroute. It would be an easier transition for aircrew and maintainers since it's based on the 60. It's also the right size for the common vertical lift program (economies of scale).

We would probably get more capability sooner with the 47 than the other two and would be less at risk of losing funding before we have the capability we need.

I'm sure someone more experienced like Eeyore has a bigger/better picture of the ramifications of all this, so take my rambling as just that.

And a very well thought out set of "Ramblings" if I do say so myself! I'll try to respond to your questions below.

1 - I got the 1,000 nm (1160nm) range from the Global Secuirty.org website listed against the HH-47G... I guess we'd have to know the cruise speed to "do the math" on the range...Perhaps the "Golf" model gets better mileage?

2 - "I think ultimately the 101 and 92 would require a beefed up fuselage to handle the extra weight." I agree, the USAF would be punching many holes into these airframes, and I wonder if TIME (risk) wasn't a factor in the decision...did the USAF think they could build a "Pave'd out" 92 or 101 in the prescribed amount of time?

3 - "It's burns less fuel [costs less) is more modern (maintenance friendly) and built with flaw tolerance in mind. It's faster on the approach and almost as fast enroute."

- Less fuel...certainly, but it seems across the life cycle this appears not to be a significant cost difference...I was surprised to see in the GAO public release the cost of ownership difference between SAC and BA was only $ 3 million! GAO didn't give us the breakdown of base price, SDD, and production costs, but given the huge fuel costs for the H-47...SAC's production costs must have been staggering.

- Maintenance Friendly? I'm not convinced one acft is less work than another...they all have the same number of moving parts that can fail, and as for composites...the only RW acft I know of using a lot of composite is the V-22 and its a nightmare for Mx, a never ending battle of rebonding (gluing) fasteners back onto the composite that vibrate loose under typical helo vibratory loads.

- Faster enroute? We all know that OEM's (like used car salesmen) will quote most anything, including "slick" acft performance, but as the Govt uglies up the acft w/ all sorts of bumps and warts we know performance suffers. I've found different numbers for the S-92, "Max Cruise"- 151 and Best range 136 kts...and only one speed (143 kts) listed for the H-47D...nothing on the F or G model, but in any case...not much difference between the acft and both would suffer performance loses with mission equipment.

4 - Commonality: "It would be an easier transition for aircrew and maintainers since it's based on the 60. It's also the right size for the common vertical lift program (economies of scale)."

- While the "Super Hawk" LOOKS like an H-60 on the outside, it is surprisingly different it was "under the hood"...I think our pilots are "smart" enough to learn how to fly the "two plam tree" helo...hell, the Army teaches people to fly it after all..!

- Economies of Scale are a good thing, and I feel for the poor Space Comm folks who can't seem to make any progress on CVLSP...True, an H-47 would be a whole lot of acft for AFSC (the cops could carry their Suburbans with them!), but the "common" part of CVLSP doesn't gain a lot of economies of scale when buying approx 250 acft for Space and Andrews, compared to the economy of scale of buying into the H-47 line w/ more than 500 acft in service to date that has training, spares pipeline, and depot support already established.

5 - If "Eeyore" is who I think it is...the name fits! (LOL), and yes, while not a member of the source selection team, he is a source who's opinion is respected.

[Eeyore]

The latest posts are thought provoking by curt22 and jorry21. This is the homework the source selection team should be doing once the AF managers or Leaders decide when to release rebid for CSAR-X. I'd reread rotorhead's latest post to glean further food for thought. I understand the AF needs to streamline cost (Ops/trng/mx) and getting AFSPC to honor new helo commitment (only if it can be built to launch a ICBM or a GPS satellite ) is a long shot. As the AF restarts the bid process, those in the field should still push mods/upgrades to HH-60 for it will be years before the new CSAR-X is in the field. Hell the AFSPC huey's, 1. will still be in service when new CSAR-X is operational; 2. get NVG cockpit; 3. still be the workhorse for AFSPC. After working the last six months in civilian EMS; DOD, AF please purchase an aircraft that does the job and is not a political solution. I'm flying the political solution and it does not meet the need.

[Guest Curt22]

Pity the CSAF decided to pull all mod funding for HH-60G's a while back...I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time...Who could have foreseen such a fiasco?

Oh well, can't blame the Chief...why would we want to spend $100 million for a "Mini-SLEP" that would help only a handful of the current acft in the fleet, with a brand new acft right around the corner.

Isn't there someone we can SHOOT to resolve this issue and move on?