CSAR-X Redux

Listen, we all know that they will find a way to make it look like the Boeing -47 is the best bird for the mission and that no one did anything wrong when they selected it. The Ch-47 has been the largest hunk-o-junk since the mid-60s and nothing has changed. Hell, they make the Ch-53 family look like mimosas make me feel during Sunday brunch. The -47 is a pig and they cost way too much to operate.

Replacing the MH-60s with a CH-47 is like replacing the F-14 with a C-5. You just can't make it work ... not even on paper...not even drunk.

If they do look at this with an open mind and call a spade a spade then we will not get the -47, The Boeing team has about 45 years of data going against them. The cost to operate, fix and supply this bird is a major undertaking but mark my word, the USAF's next CSAR helo will be the damn -47
I understand that SOCOM wants to have some redundancy in aircraft (it already uses the -47 for army special ops) but this is not the right bird for this mission and our young men and women will die as a result of them using this for Combat Search and Rescue.


So here it is, the USAF is going to look into the issue... ok right.

with quotes like this, who needs a re-competition:
The Air Force's preference for Boeing is likely to survive the second round of bidding, even though the Chinook costs more than its competitors, said Lexington Institute defense consultant Loren Thompson, who advises Lockheed Martin and other Pentagon contractors.
"Air Force leaders believe that there is almost no evidence they made a major mistake in selecting the Boeing helicopter," Thompson said. "The implication is that Boeing is likely to win the resolicitation, just as it did the original competition."

CSAR-X update. HH-47, not the best fit but you get it anyway!

It is not uncommon for companies to be a tad upset when they loose out on a major aircraft contract. It seems in this case that Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin/AgustaWestland (Lockmart/Mangusta from now on) has a good case for complaining. GAO report B-299145.4 It would seem that the HH-47 did not do so well in a few areas. One huge area is the fact that the HH-47 can not land on over 80% of the Navy’s ships. That is a huge concern being that it would be a search and rescue Helicopter and a good portion of the recoveries would be in the ocean. They would loose out on sometimes closer medical help if a ship was out of the question and they had to land back on dry land. Both the EH-101 (damn sorry, US-101) and the H-92 can land on all ships that have a landing pad.

S92 Mike Reyno Photo/Cougar Helicopters http://cougar.ca


VH-71 (US-101, EH-101)


Again, the HH-47 has massive downwash from the twin counter rotating rotors. Of the nine Chinooks lost in Afghanistan, two have been because of the “brown-out” associated with the downwash. This is a huge concern when trying to recover someone on the ground and have to use the hoist to lower a Pararescuman (PJ) to recover the victim. That PJ will not only have to fight the enemy, the elements and sometimes the victim...but now he will have to fight the helicopter as well.

Like POGO has pointed out. The HH-47 almost missed a key area. One of the requirements was to build up the helicopter after an airlift to an “area” in less than 3 hours. The documents point out that Boeing made this mark with only 2 minuets to spare…but, the document had deleted the times by both the Sikorsky and lockmart/mangusta aircraft.
It looks like because of this, the requirements were changed from MR to FR (Mission Ready to Flight Ready) which means that the time is based on just the minimums to get airborne and not to accomplish the mission. This is unacceptable. It looks like both the Sikorsky and Lockmart aircraft can become Mission Ready within two hours.

MH-47E Army'sversion of the HH-47

It is sort of funny that while between 2002-2003 when the CSAR was under the ACC USAF command that the HH-47 was brought up and then dropped from the list early on because it was not acceptable for the mission at hand but once the mission was transferred back to AFSOC and then under USSOCOM that the HH-47 found its way back onto the list. It seems that someone on the Army side of the command has a soft spot for the 1960’s era aircraft.

The GAOs report has deleted almost everything that might have favored both Sikorsky and Lockmart’s aircraft…we can only assume that the HH-47 has failed, and that someone still liked it within USSOCOM and passed it through…or is this a bone for the screwed up KC-767 deal?

IMHO, I still feel that the Sikorsky would be the best fit on just the parts availability alone. The HH-60 it would replace is Sikorsky and its sister the MH-53M is also a Sikorsky product so then, why would you throw the Boeing product in there (while the US ARMY is having parts issues with the MH/CH-47s)