Breckey Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Until all 112 HH-60U's are on the ramp I still think that AF can screw it away.
busdriver Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Yep, the AF can still screw it away. This gets us a couple DT birds and maybe a quarter of the money needed to do the development. I wouldn't count out anything at this point, other than it seems there is congressional support to keep a dedicated Rescue mission in the Air Force.
HeloDude Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Yep, the AF can still screw it away. This gets us a couple DT birds and maybe a quarter of the money needed to do the development. I wouldn't count out anything at this point, other than it seems there is congressional support to keep a dedicated Rescue mission in the Air Force. If the funding isn't there for FY15, then the program doesn't continue on schedule, even with the $300+ million for FY14. We should find out in mid/late Spring is my guess.
Breckey Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Can the birds in the NV desert be used as DT birds? They were initially scheduled to be Block 0.5 birds then converted later.
JarheadBoom Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Sikorsky awarded $15 billion contract* for new CRH. I'm assuming these will be new-build -60s with moderate bells and whistles; details of the aircraft are pretty much nonexistent in the article... * subject to budgetary/sequestration whims, of course.
HeloDude Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Sikorsky awarded $15 billion contract* for new CRH. I'm assuming these will be new-build -60s with moderate bells and whistles; details of the aircraft are pretty much nonexistent in the article... * subject to budgetary/sequestration whims, of course. I know you put your asterisk comment, but just to reiterate, nothing has been awarded as of yet as the Milestone B Decision has to be officially made, which must be done prior to contract award. As for the actual aircraft, the 160th SOAR is already flying MH-60M models...my bet is that it will be similar to that design, just finely tailored for the Air Force and its PR mission. I think we'll know for sure here pretty soon!
Breckey Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Probably something like this with an EGMS and some PR avionics. Hopefully they won't have the 400lbs of old wiring that the current -60G's have. Edit: And be painted like this: Edited March 9, 2014 by Breckey
stract Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I miss the camo paint scheme. And what are those things above the center windscreen?
busdriver Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Part of their RF countermeasure system. CRH will not be related to the 160th birds other than being based on the UH-60M.
HeloDude Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Part of their RF countermeasure system. CRH will not be related to the 160th birds other than being based on the UH-60M. UH-60M = no AR probe MH-60M = AR probe (just one example, which you're obviously aware of...not saying it will have the exact same probe or specifications) I think there will me some more similarities to the MH-60M vs just being similar to a slick UH-60M. I'm pretty sure I know you what meant though.
busdriver Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Sure they'll be similarities, both will UH-60M based with a bunch of extra stuff added. My point was that this isn't a case of going and grabbing an MH-60M and making a couple tweaks.
HeloDude Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Sure they'll be similarities, both will UH-60M based with a bunch of extra stuff added. My point was that this isn't a case of going and grabbing an MH-60M and making a couple tweaks. Agreed.
Breckey Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Any idea if they're going to have TF/TA? The original HH-60D had it but, as you know, it was cut for budgetary reasons.
Fuzz Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Got to haul a couple of these for the SOAR guys and the pilots said their M's do have it.
busdriver Posted March 10, 2014 Posted March 10, 2014 Any idea if they're going to have TF/TA? Nope, too expensive. It'll basically be a newer version of the G (or what the G is supposed to have by then) except better integrated and on a Mike airframe.
stract Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 well this is a though-provoking read. The author starts out asking why, if the S-92 just go awarded to be the next presidential helo, can't the same platform act as the bones for the CRH. He then goes on to argue for a mixed fleet (which is a discussion we've already had, when AFSOC proposed it last year)... https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/s-92-is-the-next-marine-one-what-about-combat-search-1542333610/1574474700/+ballaban
Hodor Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) Read that last night. Had some good points that my friends and I have been discussion since getting out of Rucker. Something a little smaller than an H-3 with modern avionics and a drive train that we are used to would be nice. Also, having more room in the back would open up a bunch of options. A couple guys that have been the Afghanistan said some contractors used them up there, but they were power limited like the 60G even without guns, a probe, countermeasures, PJ's, and aux fuel. Pro's and Con's, but it seems like the Con's can be fixed with better engines and a stronger transmission/high speed shafts, flight controls. Edited May 11, 2014 by Hodor
JarheadBoom Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 They're already been having cracking issues on the -92 transmission beams and surrounding structure, with the current power & gross weight limits. There's currently an Alert Service Bulletin to do a bunch of rework on/around the transmission beams to alleviate stresses in that area, and hopefully allow the airframes to make it to their predicted SLL (15k hrs, IIRC... but don't quote me on that number). Not to mention the long-running main gearbox issue, which, in Sikorsky's defense, may finally be solved (at current power and GW limits). Add more power and a shit-ton of .mil mission equipment, and Sikorsky will have to scab on a couple hundred extra pounds of aluminum/stainless/titanium just to make the cracks go somewhere other than around the MGB. Bristow is operating several S-92s in an offshore SAR configuration in the North Sea. Lots of .civ SAR mission equipment, aux tanks, dual hoist, etc. It would be interesting to see how those aircraft are holding up in that environment...
busdriver Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 The problem is that no matter what helicopter we pick as CRH it's basically a gen 4.5 platform. Sure it'll have better avionics and might make up for some deficiencies that the G has, but at the end of the day it's still a slow ass helicopter. The Osprey is much faster, but is still a crappy vertical lift aircraft. If we really want to get serious about CSAR and even long range SOF infil/exfil, we should be focused on the next generation. The future vertical lift platform is currently lead by the Army, who knows what they'll pick, but in my opinion both SOF and CSAR are best served by a fast(relative), high flying rotary wing platform that is primarily a vertical lift asset. Something like the X2, but Blackhawk sized and capable of pressurizing, with radar signature reduction measures along with a radar jammer and stand off weapons and sensor. 2
Lawman Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 The Hawk is and should be the last pure medium lift (medium being generous) that we operate. The driving force behind hat design was to carry an 11 man infantry squad within the confines of the combined arms model.... An Army model based on linear warfare. That means the thing is only designed to work within 30K of the FLOT. That's where these constant make it do more ideas are fucking us, and you guys specifically. Even the SOAR guys have realized the 60 is really just a short range platform. The ranges you can expect an OCA/DCA mission to go down its just insane that all we have to go with is a heavier, fatter, heavily armed 60. Jump FARPs and Air refuel theoretically extend that range but we haven't really don't anything different with the model of what your bringing to the fight. Either you need a huge package of aircraft to put any effective ground force on the dirt or you need a shit load of escort to keep those handful of super medic/snake eaters from being over run trying to defend the isolated personnel. FVL is coming... But it's at least a decade out if we start today. The Army isn't even defining the requirement till 2019 with an expected implementation around 2025 (not holding my breath). Hell we aren't even going to be done buying E model Apaches and M model Hawks until something like 2022 according to the current plan.
slackline Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 The Hawk is and should be the last pure medium lift (medium being generous) that we operate. The driving force behind hat design was to carry an 11 man infantry squad within the confines of the combined arms model.... An Army model based on linear warfare. That means the thing is only designed to work within 30K of the FLOT. That's where these constant make it do more ideas are ######ing us, and you guys specifically. Even the SOAR guys have realized the 60 is really just a short range platform. The ranges you can expect an OCA/DCA mission to go down its just insane that all we have to go with is a heavier, fatter, heavily armed 60. Jump FARPs and Air refuel theoretically extend that range but we haven't really don't anything different with the model of what your bringing to the fight. Either you need a huge package of aircraft to put any effective ground force on the dirt or you need a shit load of escort to keep those handful of super medic/snake eaters from being over run trying to defend the isolated personnel. FVL is coming... But it's at least a decade out if we start today. The Army isn't even defining the requirement till 2019 with an expected implementation around 2025 (not holding my breath). Hell we aren't even going to be done buying E model Apaches and M model Hawks until something like 2022 according to the current plan. That's discouraging. I hate being out of the loop... Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!
stract Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Connecticut, has been awarded a $1,277,618,606 fixed-price-incentive-firm at target price/firm-fixed-price contract for the initial engineering, manufacturing and development Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program. https://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=5316
Breckey Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 Still need the funding for the aircraft themselves. Any idea if they're planing on using the T706s that SOAR is using in their Mike models or the standard 701Ds?
stract Posted June 26, 2014 Posted June 26, 2014 https://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=fb6bfa503f8d6410VgnVCM1000004f62529fRCRD Sikorsky press release says 701Ds
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