CSAR-X

[hardie9e]

https://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/24/338770/usaf-abandons-large-helicopter-for-rescue-mission-proposes-buying-112.html

USAF abandons large helicopter for rescue mission, proposes buying 112 UH-60Ms

By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has decided to buy 112 Sikorsky UH-60Ms to recapitalise its ageing combat search and rescue fleet, despite a standing requirement for a larger helicopter.

Sikorsky will modify the M-model aircraft to the HH-60L configuration, replacing a fleet of HH-60G Pave Hawks that has dwindled to about 101 airframes, says Lt Gen Mark Shackelford, head of USAF acquisition.

The HH-60 represents the current standard for the USAF's SAR mission, in which its crews are tasked to fly deep into enemy territory to retrieve downed airmen. "The new H-60s will be modified to be rescue helicopters, obviously with some tempering of performance," Shackelford says.

© Staff Sgt Aaron Allmon/USAF

In 2006, the USAF signed the CSAR-X contract to buy 141 Boeing HH-47s, selecting the Chinook over the Sikorsky HH-92 and Lockheed Martin/AgustaWestland HH-71. But the contract award process became a landmark example of acquisition policy.

The US Government Accountability Office sustained two protests filed by the losing bidders, and the USAF's attempts to restart the competition without heeding its recommendations failed. The service terminated the contract with Boeing in June 2009, clearing the way for a sole-source contract to Sikorsky for the smaller helicopter.

If Congress approves funding for the plan, the USAF will recapitalise its existing fleet, but fall short of plans to broaden the mission with a larger and more capable aircraft.

Under the CSAR-X programme, the USAF envisaged not only rescuing downed airmen, but also picking up small units behind enemy lines, or even ferrying cargo or passengers during natural disasters. That requirement drove it to ask bidders to provide a medium or heavylift helicopter.

The requirement for "personnel recovery" still stands, Shackelford says, and will be addressed by the USAF in the future. But for now it is focused on ensuring that downed aircrews will not lack a helicopter force ready to retrieve them.

"Those [aircraft] are busy fliers in a war and very much sought after," he says.

Guess they decided to replace the pavehawks with new ones.

-Hardie9e

[Guest Lockjaw25]

I imagine this thread will get rolled into the larger CSAR-X thread from a while back, but oh well.

Looks like the scuttlebutt was true. If we get the funding. I find it interesting that the "envisaged" missions hinted at in the article as requirements for the CSAR-X are already being performed by the 60Gs.

[Breckey]

Any speculation on what the version letter of the improved Hawks will be? The Army already has the HH-60M for their MEDEVAC birds. HH-60P perhaps?

Edited February 24, 2010 by Breckey

[HiFlyer]

Any speculation on what the version letter of the improved Hawks will be? The Army already has the HH-60M for their MEDEVAC birds. HH-60P perhaps?

The article says HH-60L.

[Breckey]

I would think that that would cause some headache because the Lima variant of the Blackhawk has been in production since the 1980's (before some of the 60G's even entered service)

[busdriver]

My guess is that if this goes forward the aircraft will be a near duplicate of the MH-60M, what it'll be called is anyone's guess.

[SCRIMP]

The af.mil article I found on it today mentions only 90 million being allocated for the M-model. I may have not carried my one correctly, but I do not think that 90mil will buy 112 aircraft...maybe closer to 6ish.

https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123148160

Maybe this article is just a little out of date but to me the numbers do not match up.

[busdriver]

You are correct, this year's budget allocates funding for I think 5 aircraft that will be used for testing and development.

Like I said, a near duplicate of the MH-60M, they need to determine what needs to change for the CSAR mission and how those changes will affect the airframe & avionics. That's assuming the funding in this year's budget goes that route instead of straight up combat loss replacement, which would mean a single guard unit gets new toys.

Edited February 25, 2010 by busdriver

[stract]

HH-60P is already taken by the ROKAF.

[usaf36031]

Can somebody with some knowledge on the subject explain what new capabilities the mike model brings to the fight? I know the cockpit is glass which is sweet, but a lot of the complaints I've heard about the 60 as a rescue bird dealt with problems like power available, max gross, ceiling limitations and cabin space. Does buying Ms solve any if this? I've heard they have a modified rotor system. How about engines? Would it be possible to cut some of the weight added by the older electronics on the G? Personally I'm excited to read this announcement because I love the 60, but as a new guy starting out in rescue, I'd like to hear some thoughts from some of the more experienced guys. Thx.

[HiFlyer]

Can somebody with some knowledge on the subject explain what new capabilities the mike model brings to the fight? I know the cockpit is glass which is sweet, but a lot of the complaints I've heard about the 60 as a rescue bird dealt with problems like power available, max gross, ceiling limitations and cabin space. Does buying Ms solve any if this? I've heard they have a modified rotor system. How about engines? Would it be possible to cut some of the weight added by the older electronics on the G? Personally I'm excited to read this announcement because I love the 60, but as a new guy starting out in rescue, I'd like to hear some thoughts from some of the more experienced guys. Thx.

I think first off, you need to learn "Pentagon-speak". This is not a "new CSAR aircraft"...its a "recapitalization" of the HH-60G fleet. Recap generally means replacing an existing unit with a modernized version of the same thing. In this case, they'll take the existing UH60M army variant as a starting point, fix it up with modernized equipment that performs the HH-60G mission but is the latest stuff (glass cockpit, newer gen electonics, newer version engines, transmissions, rotors, etc.), and call it the HH-60L. Its like replacing your Pentium 3 desktop with a Pentium 4 version; its got newer guts but still a basic desktop...it isn't a high end server. In the process, the budget weenies will fight tooth and nail to cut "unnecessary" add-ons (you know, engines, rotors, seats, etc.) and the end product will be something like a 60G, but maybe a little more maintainable because the guts are newer and still in production. The goal of recapitalization isn't usually to provide new capability, but rather to provide replacements for existing capabilities and take whatever small improvement comes with later version parts.

Having spent about $2.5-3B on that (probably about $20M per bird plus R&D by the time they build it), the budget weenies will then fight every attempt to fund a CSAR-X for a few years because they'll say the AF just bought a new CSAR aircraft and in the remote chance they need to go farther the Marines or Spec Ops guys can go with an Osprey. If budget things get real tight, I suspect some study will suddenly prove they really don't need 112 and can get by with 85 or 70 or whatever they figure they can squeeze out of the POM.

By the way, I'm not a rescue guy, but every day I do perform study work for the DoD that supports this process. On the flip side of this problem, everybody wants everything, but there isn't enough money for everybody to GET everything. so everybody gets screwed a little in order to give most of the people something.

Edited February 27, 2010 by HiFlyer

[HiFlyer]

By the way, just looking at the various aircraft info sites, current engine possibilities from the GE T-700 family are: (60G with T-700/701s - 1630 SHP ea)...UH-60M engine( GE 700/701D) - 1994 SHP ea, the /701E, a 701D with FADEC added, or the MH-60M's GE CT7-8B-5 with 2600 SHP each.

Edited February 27, 2010 by HiFlyer

[busdriver]

What we get from new birds is really a matter of money, as HiFlyer stated. In the end we'll still have a space & range limitation (although probably better than current) but could fix issues like usable aircraft load, power margin and maintainability.

[RescueRandy]

This new article backs up what the COMACC hinted at during a Q&A with us at DM. However, he only mentioned the replacement of combat losses with "the Mike model 60" and did not mention a total re-capitalization of our 60G fleet. I do have to say that 112 new Mikes is an exciting prospect given how beat-up our Gs are. We sure could use a solution to some very real issues with our Gs, even with the 701C engines.

[JarheadBoom]

The "stock" -60M gives you 701D engines, wide-chord MRBs (same blade as the S-92, IIRC), a more durable MGB, a glass cockpit with newer/better avionics and a 1553 bus, and some structural mods.

[tac airlifter]

Thought this was a worthy addition to the thread.

Issue Brief

March 1, 2010

www.lexingtoninstitute.org

SEARCH AND RESCUE: ANOTHER BLOW TO U.S. AIR POWER?

Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

The U.S. Air Force is at the lowest ebb in its 73-year history. Although its capabilities still far surpass those of other air services around the world, it is gradually using up the arsenal it acquired during the closing days of the Cold War. Over the last five years, the Air Force has seen its next-generation F-22 air superiority fighter terminated at less than half the required number, its next-generation bomber delayed by over a decade, and its plan to replace airborne surveillance planes canceled. Planners also want to end production of the service's admired C-17 cargo jet at a mere 222 planes, even though the oldest C-17s will soon reach the end of their design lives and there is no chance of building something else.

You'd think at this point policymakers would be ready to train their sights on some other hapless victim of "rebalancing," but no such luck. Two articles in the defense trade press last week signaled that the next blow to U.S. air power will be aimed at the Air Force's search and rescue community, which for decades has led the joint force in retrieving downed pilots and other endangered personnel from harm's way. The need for agile rotorcraft and highly trained personnel who can survive in hostile airspace to save warfighters at risk used to be deemed so important that it was rated the Air Force's number-two modernization priority, second only to replacement of decrepit Eisenhower-era tankers. But apparently the rescue of lost soldiers and airmen doesn't command the constituency it once did, because both articles indicated service leaders are moving to embrace the least capable option.

The first article, written by Stephen Trimble of Flight International, said "The Air Force has decided to buy 112 Sikorsky UH-60Ms to recapitalise its ageing combat search and rescue fleet, despite a standing requirement for a larger helicopter." Trimble attributed this information to the service's senior uniform acquisition executive, Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford. A second article appearing two days later by Marcus Weisgerber of Inside the Air Force cited Shackelford as saying no final decisions had been made on what would replace existing HH-60G search and rescue helicopters, but "it could be new H-60s modified to be rescue helicopters." Weisgerber noted that the search and rescue fleet had dwindled to so few flyable helicopters that the service was already buying new H-60s in 2010 and requesting six more in 2011 as replacements, but he described that as a temporary solution. Weisgerber quoted Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz endorsing an "off-the-shelf" solution acquired in the smallest feasible quantity, "given our resource constraints."

Clearly, Air Force plans are trending away from the more capable alternatives considered only a few years ago, when Boeing's HH-47 Chinook was selected in a three-way competition with the AgustaWestland EH-101 and Sikorsky H-92. That decision was later overturned because the Government Accountability Office questioned the way life-cycle costs had been calculated, but then defense secretary Robert Gates canceled the effort, putting the future of the whole mission area in doubt. What's so odd about this process is that an "analysis of alternatives" conducted by the Air Force in 2002 cast doubt on the suitability of the H-60 for the mission given crew workloads, lack of defensive features, and other deficiencies. More recently, the Joint Forces Command re-validated requirements for a new search and rescue airframe in higher numbers than the Air Force is now apparently planning. One thing is clear, though: the H-60s the service is contemplating buying are far inferior to HH-47, EH-101 and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor alternatives that are readily available. So unless something changes, this looks like yet another mission area where the Air Force is losing altitude fast.

[KingHerc]

I know this is a forum for the CSAR-X but what about the Kings. Has anyone heard any new rumors on the acquisition of our J models. I gotta say atleast the 60's will get something "new". it might only be an 80% solution but its something. The Kings are dying and quickly. If we dont get a replacement soon you guys will have no tanker at all.

[busdriver]

Short and sweet of the above: Rescue better not be holding its breath.

Like I said earlier in this thread, we (both helos and hercs) need to be back in AFSOC/SOCOM, AND fully embrace the SOF mission to ensure continued survival. Well that would at least ensure the Kings' survival.

[usaf36031]

One thing is clear, though: the H-60s the service is contemplating buying are far inferior to HH-47, EH-101 and V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor alternatives that are readily available.

First of all, when did the Osprey come into serious consideration as a SAR platform? Last I heard, it was setting fires to the grass when it landed because of it's volcanic death engine downwash. False? Either way, he replaced sikorsky's candidate with another boeing product...weird.

Secondly, the above statement seems very general and overly simplified. I'm guessing that this guy either works for Boeing... or as a child he really enjoyed debating the finer points of who would win in a fight between Batman and Godzilla.

[raimius]

First of all, when did the Osprey come into serious consideration as a SAR platform? Last I heard, it was setting fires to the grass when it landed because of it's volcanic death engine downwash. False? Either way, he replaced sikorsky's candidate with another boeing product...weird.

Secondly, the above statement seems very general and overly simplified. I'm guessing that this guy either works for Boeing... or as a child he really enjoyed debating the finer points of who would win in a fight between Batman and Godzilla.

Well, the Osprey did fry the grass where I've seen it land. So, "true."

CSAR guys, do you want/need something as large an MH-47?

Edited March 3, 2010 by raimius

[busdriver]

Actually, from what I've heard the CV-22 was a heavy hitter early in the PRV program, until they realized it was completely unaffordable.

Do we need something bigger than a 60? Yes.

Do we need something as big as a 47? No.

Would the 47 have worked? Yes.

Was it perfect? No.

[Guest CharlieDontSurf]

I know this is a forum for the CSAR-X but what about the Kings. Has anyone heard any new rumors on the acquisition of our J models. I gotta say atleast the 60's will get something "new". it might only be an 80% solution but its something. The Kings are dying and quickly. If we dont get a replacement soon you guys will have no tanker at all.

Last I saw the HC-130J is the next in line to be distributed 2011, followed by the MC-J

[HeloDude]

If we dont get a replacement soon you guys will have no tanker at all.

Yes, because 60's can't be air refueled by: Shadows, Talon II's, or Marine KC-130's. I believe the new MC-130W is also in the list if I'm not mistaken.

[Guest CharlieDontSurf]

Yes, because 60's can't be air refueled by: Shadows, Talon II's, or Marine KC-130's. I believe the new MC-130W is also in the list if I'm not mistaken.

You believe correctly. However currently we no longer are able to HAR in the short term with the new mods.

[dmeg130]

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.