Congress looks at Helo Master Plan

[bert]

I don't think anybody is arguing that having heavy lift capability isn't a good thing. But what I am saying is that the K is still in SDD and it has a long and expensive road in front of it.

 

[Flash]

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.

The C-130J had a long and tortuous testing and development period that greatly delayed its deployment and FOC. This was not just the case with teh USAF but the RAF and the RAAF as well.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/012405cdpm3.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130j.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5499155/

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=260411&page=1

I don't think anybody is arguing that having heavy lift capability isn't a good thing. But what I am saying is that the K is still in SDD and it has a long and expensive road in front of it.

That is exactly my line of thinking. The DOD can ill afford to keep having procurement issues on programs like the V-22, F-22, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, SBIRS and the Littoral Combat Ship. I believe that with the new administration the budget axe will fall and some of these 'necessary' programs will be cancelled. If the K keeps sliding to the right it may not be around too much longer, a needed capability or not. Believe it.

 

[phrogdriver]

I think that at the current rate, the DOD will eventually own one aircraft that the USAF will get Monday through Thursday, the Navy onFriday and Saturday, while the Army and Marines share alternating Sundays.

The CH-53K is definitely the heavy-lift helo of tomorrow. It's a big improvement, but an evolutionary one, over the current platform. The day after tomorrow, who knows? I tend to think that we're in a crisis, "Oh crap, we're wearing out 53s, what are we going to do?" mode. The current pace of operations and budgets is not going to continue, and when it stops, the Corps might find that it would have been better off giving a naval character to a joint program, e.g. the JHL, than a single-service solution when the chopping block is pulled out. Plus, as part of the JHL process, the Army has solicited high-speed solutions--200 knots+, that will mesh better with the tiltrotor side of the house that is coming online (like it or not).

This isn't to say I'm AGAINST the 53K. I just look at it and wonder whether we're just trading up to next year's model, when we really need a whole new platform. Just like the Yankee/Zulu, which were also supposed to be easy to build, but weren't.

 

[bert]

I agree with Flash and phrog, except where phrog calls the K "evolutionary". We are learning the lesson with the 71 that those kind of changes are on par with the development of a brand new aircraft.

 

[phrogdriver]

I agree with Flash and phrog, except where phrog calls the K "evolutionary". We are learning the lesson with the 71 that those kind of changes are on par with the development of a brand new aircraft.

I meant "evolutionary" in terms of improvements in performance, vice level of difficulty. While significant, the change in performance between the E and K are a step ahead, not a leap ahead. It's not the same as a "revolutionary" change, such as jumping from props to jets, helos to tiltrotors, etc, which came with greater risks and greater payoffs.

 

[S.O.B.]

Anyone have anything new on OAMCM? I would imagine this topic will, or has come up at NHA.