UH-1Y achieves Initial Operational Capability (IOC) with little fanfare

[phrogdriver]

I think you're full of it. The 47 is heavy lift, analagous to a 53, not a 46. It is much bigger and not compatible with shipboard ops. The Apache is a maintenance nightmare and completely unsuited to counterinsurgency and escort work (FLIR-based optics as primary, poor running fire capability, etc). The 60 is a fine bird, but again, is something of a med-lift platform, though I suppose it's fine, as far as that goes.

What's wrong with the tiltrotor business? Huh, punk? Feelin' lucky? :icon_shoo:icon_wink

 

[johnny utah]

I put in a requirement for the P-8 to have square wheels, which will reduce our landing roll considerably. For takeoff there's a device that'll squirt oil in front of the wheel thereby decreasing takeoff roll.

I have all the solutions!

Good news. The DoD already their best guy working on these ideas.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

I think you're full of it. The 47 is heavy lift, analagous to a 53, not a 46. It is much bigger and not compatible with shipboard ops.

It's not? Just playing Devil's Advocate here... I really have no say in this argument.

 

[phrogdriver]

Perhaps I should say "sustained" shipboard ops. I know that we loaded a whole load of Army helos on big-deck carriers for short periods in the Haiti crisis a few years back and during early OEF. Me, personally, I like to have a rotor brake and droop stops on a tandem rotor helo on a ship to avoid striking the tunnel in high seas at low rpm. I also like to have folding blades to fit into the hangar for maintenance. A four-wheel gear system would suck to tow around a flight deck. Little things like that make a difference in the long run. Hell, you can fly a C-130 off a ship in the short term.

The bigger point is that that we already have a heavy-lift helo, the CH-53. The 47 is about as analogous to the 46 as a school bus is to an SUV.

 

[HeyJoe]

Perhaps I should say "sustained" shipboard ops. I know that we loaded a whole load of Army helos on big-deck carriers for short periods in the Haiti crisis a few years back and during early OEF. Me, personally, I like to have a rotor brake and droop stops on a tandem rotor helo on a ship to avoid striking the tunnel in high seas at low rpm. I also like to have folding blades to fit into the hangar for maintenance. A four-wheel gear system would suck to tow around a flight deck. Little things like that make a difference in the long run. Hell, you can fly a C-130 off a ship in the short term.

The bigger point is that that we already have a heavy-lift helo, the CH-53. The 47 is about as analogous to the 46 as a school bus is to an SUV.

USS Kitty Hawk was home to many Army helos during OEF as you mention above. More than a handful of other occasions when navy ships become platform of choice. Depends on how long you define "sustained" vs "semporary"...

080224-N-5067K-260 PACIFIC OCEAN (Feb. 24, 2008) Landing signal enlisted personnel (LSE) maintain one of two U.S. Army MH-47G Chinook helicopters attached to the "Night Stalkers" of the 160th Special Operations Squadron, as they performing deck landing qualifications aboard the amphibious transport dock ship USS Juneau (LPD 10). Juneau is part of the Essex Expeditionary Strike Group participating in the annual bilateral exercise Balikatan 2008, between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States. During the Balikatan 2008 humanitarian assistance and training activities, military service members from the United States and the government of the Republic of the Philippines work together to improve maritime security and ensure humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts are efficient and effective. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Michael D. Kennedy (Released)

 

[HeyJoe]

Hey I had a great experience - has nothing to do with that. I just shake my head at the engineering and requirements decisions that made your senior leadership folks reinvent the wheel with an aircraft that has basically the same footprint and capabilities as the Sikorsky S-70/H-60.

As lean as the Marine Corps is, why insist on evolving an airframe from the 70's - when what came out of the Navair/PMA effort looks in fact like an H-60 on paper!

Are your communities warfighting requirements so unique? Or is it more parochialism at work.

Just frustrating to read about this airframe and my common sense says "huh?"

Now there win't be any re-manufactured airframes - instead bending new aluminum and composites. So much for the economy of reusing 25 year old metal.

I am sure there are tons of detailed PPT decks with mission requiremets, gap analysis, swim lanes, etc. And I'm sure it was all conceived by smat folks with sound decision making capabilities.

But the big picture? You are getting a 20,000 lbs aircraft with a 6-8,000 lb payload, that doesn't do anything different than the one designed by Sikorsky - and no other servive besides USMC will use it!

That's my point Skid Kid, not an attack on anyone - but soap box / rant... absolutely.



Whew!

This issue was looked at initially and then again at the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) that gave the 4BN/BW (initial name for H-1 Upgrades Program that yielded the Yankee and the Zulu). Despite heavy pressure by Sikorsky and a sweetheart deal, the Marine Aviation Leadership argued successfully from a Type/Model/Series and logistics/maint perspective that the deployed ACE needed to have the benefit of similar rotor/transmission and avionics components between the two skid platfroms rather than have yet another airframe introduced into the mix. It was duly considered and DAB decided to go with the upgrade of existing UH-1N and AH-1W platforms. It was only after breaking open the first inducted airframes that it came to pass that trying to upgrade tired airframes was not the most feasible and affordable approach (same thing happened with the MH-60R).

*4 bladed November/4 bladed Whiskey

 

[Clux4]

I think we need Heavy lift capabilities more than ever before. Take for example, the proposed JLTV, I could not find the weight on that thing, but chances are that the only thing that can pick it up helo wise is a 47 and maybe a newer 53. If the MRAP and the improved troop careers are any indication of the future, it would be that we are going heavy not lighter.

Folding the blades on a 47 and the other feature that make it suitable for shipboard operations are probably not as expensive a fix. The newer ones now have glass cockpits, more avi packages.

Just a thought! In the end, our leaders will do what is best for our service.

 

[Pags]

Folding the blades on a 47 and the other feature that make it suitable for shipboard operations are probably not as expensive a fix. The newer ones now have glass cockpits, more avi packages.

Making a 47 that will fit in an LHA/LHD hangar plus adding folding rotor blades, rotor brake, and other ship board stuff would make for a whole new helicopter, that would end up being expensive.

 

[phrogdriver]

I think we need Heavy lift capabilities more than ever before. Take for example, the proposed JLTV, I could not find the weight on that thing, but chances are that the only thing that can pick it up helo wise is a 47 and maybe a newer 53. If the MRAP and the improved troop careers are any indication of the future, it would be that we are going heavy not lighter.

Sounds like a guess to me. MRAPs are way outside the box as far as weight. Externally transporting vehicles is generally a dog-and-pony thing. The times it's legitimately necessary are few and far between. Internally transportable vehicles are another matter, and those are made to be light.

Folding the blades on a 47 and the other feature that make it suitable for shipboard operations are probably not as expensive a fix. The newer ones now have glass cockpits, more avi packages.

If you want to plus up heavy lift, why not just propose a CH-53, vice a 47? Besides, there are plenty of times you just want to transport people, and that's what med lift does.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Folding the blades on a 47 and the other feature that make it suitable for shipboard operations are probably not as expensive a fix. The newer ones now have glass cockpits, more avi packages.

Hmmm, folding blades, glass cockpit, lots o' avionics goodies, heavy lift... Sounds like the CH-53K to me.

 

[mmx1]

If the MRAP and the improved troop careers are any indication of the future, it would be that we are going heavy not lighter.

The MRAP is not the wave of the future, unless we plan to invade Iraq again, or, ideally, South Africa (the original target environment for tall v-hulled APC's). That or Mothers of America continue dictating our equipment purchasing.

 

[FlyingBeagle]

A dedicated attack helo like the W and the Z are in fact better suited to the attack role than the 60 (yes I know 60s are used in that role but not in a med to high threat environment).

What exactly makes the Huey better suited for a high threat environment than a 60? I'm not talking tactics, employment, training, etc. . . simply the airframe and equipment.

 

[phrogpilot73]

What exactly makes the Huey better suited for a high threat environment than a 60? I'm not talking tactics, employment, training, etc. . . simply the airframe and equipment.

Pssst - the W and the Z that he referred to are Cobras...

 

[Zissou]

Stupid question guys: Can the 53 get up in the mountains like the 47?

When I was in Afghan we had no Marines at the time so I never saw 53's. Just curious.

 

[HeyJoe]

Stupid question guys: Can the 53 get up in the mountains like the 47?

When I was in Afghan we had no Marines at the time so I never saw 53's. Just curious.

The Echo can. In fact, when Army 47s were getting shot up in Anaconda, Marine 53Es had to boogie up that way as they were only other assets capable of operating at that altitude with any meaningful payload.