I just can't wait for my "super hawk" natops and the amazing shit show that it will no doubt be.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Congress looks at Helo Master Plan
- Thread starter S.O.B.
- Start date
That is what they are aiming for, not what they have achieved. You are talking new engines/blades/heads/xmsn, etc. I would want to see them hit that on time and without a Nunn-McCurdy breach before I counted those chickens. Look at the -71's issues attempting a less ambitious performance increase to see the issues.
I found the medium/heavy lift comments interesting. Since I tend to look at it from an acquisition pov rather than an operator; I would point out the very real increases in procurement, operating, and maintenance costs of "heavy" over "medium" lift (got to put that in quotes in light of CSAR-X). Then again, from an operators point of view you have to consider getting that heavy lift bird into the theater (and their support - both parts and labor) and into a LZ once it is there.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-navys-top-acquisition-official-steps-down-03961/
I'm not sure what these means for the future our future but the Navy's head of acquisitions has decided to step down.
I'm not sure what these means for the future our future but the Navy's head of acquisitions has decided to step down.
We currently have a newly minted O-4 with 90+ tow hours in the S at our squadron for trusted agent training. Regarding towing with the S, he remarks "the airframe isn't really suited for it."
That's more to do with the debacle that is the LCS program than anything else. Stop-work orders tend to make lots of people mad.
release
Took this from another thread:
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=32501&VIRIN=51590&imagetype=1&page=1
It specifically mentions....
"MH-60Rs and MH-60Ss will eventually replace all SH-60B, SH-60F, HH-60H, HH-1N, UH-3H and CH-46D helicopters currently in the Navy�s inventory, effectively increasing capability and flexibility."
The -53 isn't listed. Perhaps they are realistic about the S not being able to fulfill the role of the 53E.
Took this from another thread:
http://www.news.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=32501&VIRIN=51590&imagetype=1&page=1
It specifically mentions....
"MH-60Rs and MH-60Ss will eventually replace all SH-60B, SH-60F, HH-60H, HH-1N, UH-3H and CH-46D helicopters currently in the Navy�s inventory, effectively increasing capability and flexibility."
The -53 isn't listed. Perhaps they are realistic about the S not being able to fulfill the role of the 53E.
While the S for damn sure can't do the VOD mission that 53s do, they're doing their damndest to make it do the AMCM mission. The phrase "square peg in a round hole" comes to mind.
Empty tank of gas, with 2 crew aboard, we barely hit 6000# external before hitting Q limits.
Interesting article on the V-22 program.
Long live the 53. Great airframe. Expensive and time consuming to fix, but very capable of almost any mission you can throw at it. The army loved having HC-4 53's in Kuwait/Iraq. While the amount of cargo/pax hauled for the army was not an amazing amount by Navy/Marine heavy lift standards, it was very impressive to them.
Hopefully the navy can get a lock on the 53K to have a good transition when the E's start high-timing.
Article for those interested-
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666282,00.html
Long live the 53. Great airframe. Expensive and time consuming to fix, but very capable of almost any mission you can throw at it. The army loved having HC-4 53's in Kuwait/Iraq. While the amount of cargo/pax hauled for the army was not an amazing amount by Navy/Marine heavy lift standards, it was very impressive to them.
Hopefully the navy can get a lock on the 53K to have a good transition when the E's start high-timing.
Article for those interested-
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666282,00.html
Discussed at length in this thread.
http://www.airwarriors.com/forum/showthread.php?p=366602#post366602
On the CH-47, no it can do what a CH-53E can do now lift wise nor can it do what a CH-53K will be able to do. It definitely is not shipboard compatible, blades do not fold except manually but the real show stopper is the aft pylon is too tall even for a CVN to get it off an elevator into the hangar. Efficiency at a high-density altitude is a different story.
Why would you want to interject something different in the supply chain with respect to a "new" medium lift aircraft? Buying the "K" makes sense logistically. Yes the "K" timeline could slide right, and the CH-53E will be the heavy lift until the "K" makes it. Compared to Joint Heavy Lift, the "K" is light years ahead, it is not a science project, and JHL is.
Cost per flight hour on the 53E has dropped immensely. IMDS will further decrease that cost per flight hour. Whip out the Sling Load Manual and start looking at the weights of vehicles, conex boxes, and equipment and you will quickly see stuff weighs a lot. Things are only getting heavier from JSF engines to vehicles, so why buy a small truck where you do not have any room to grow payload wise? That is why you go big so you have the ability to meet future unforeseen needs.
Why would you want to interject something different in the supply chain with respect to a "new" medium lift aircraft? Buying the "K" makes sense logistically. Yes the "K" timeline could slide right, and the CH-53E will be the heavy lift until the "K" makes it. Compared to Joint Heavy Lift, the "K" is light years ahead, it is not a science project, and JHL is.
Cost per flight hour on the 53E has dropped immensely. IMDS will further decrease that cost per flight hour. Whip out the Sling Load Manual and start looking at the weights of vehicles, conex boxes, and equipment and you will quickly see stuff weighs a lot. Things are only getting heavier from JSF engines to vehicles, so why buy a small truck where you do not have any room to grow payload wise? That is why you go big so you have the ability to meet future unforeseen needs.
Not sure where you are getting your math, but JP-5 alone means cost/hour has only gone up for the E.
As far as being a "science project" goes: new engines/blades/xmsn/etc means that a K is not COTS by any measure (and will change a lot of the expensive parts of the logistics tail).
As far as being a "science project" goes: new engines/blades/xmsn/etc means that a K is not COTS by any measure (and will change a lot of the expensive parts of the logistics tail).
Logistical sense refers to purchasing a TMS that will number 200+ in the Marine Corps versus one that numbers less than 20 (VH-71) which is your most logical medium lift choice. You can spout cost per flight hour and I can spout lbs moved per flight hour, your call. All I know is that I can move more stuff further and faster in a CH-53E today and be exposed to a threat less than I can in what ever medium lift platform you choose. The same story will be true for a CH-53K. How many 463L pallets will a H-71 or S-92 hold? Sea Basing has a huge logistical requirement. I do not see the bang that a medium lift aircraft brings to the fight. Why not jump on board with a program that is moving forward and will have logistical commonality? There is more to the equation than cost per flight hour. Big aircraft equals big engines, lots of fuel, and the ability to move large amounts of cargo, equipment, and people. VW Thing versus a Mack truck.
We are talking about the same KC-130J that has a greater than 90% mission capable rate and has been flying in Iraq for at least three years? Just checking to ensure we are talking about the same aircraft? Not sure about the reference to a KC-130J as a science project.
We are talking about the same KC-130J that has a greater than 90% mission capable rate and has been flying in Iraq for at least three years? Just checking to ensure we are talking about the same aircraft? Not sure about the reference to a KC-130J as a science project.
2sr2worry
Naval Aviation=world's greatest team sport
Heavy lift in support of sea-basing and other scenarios was recently studied by the folks at RAND. Here's their report, which hints at an even greater need for something like the -53.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG649.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG649.pdf