USMC Executive Flight Detachment (HMX-1 and Presidential Helo)

[Flash]

I liked the President's response. The Presidential Helo program seems ridiculous: I don't see why we can't use the VH-60s to replace the UH-3s. I'm not a 100% certain but I've heard they're buying 30 EH-101s to replace 3 UH-3s .

From what I can find from open sources there are 11 VH-3D's and 8 VH-60N's, they are planning to buy 28 VH-71's (I think 5 relatively 'green' aircraft first and 23 'missionized' aircraft later). With the added security concerns about continuity of government some of the extra ones (only 4 when you get down to it) are probably to ensure they can transport not only the President but some of his possible successors too.

 

[scoolbubba]

I didn't realize they were replacing the 60's as well. What's wrong with them? Is this to get the cost/unit to go down, or were they just incapable of supporting the new comms suite the White House wanted?

 

[S.O.B.]

From what I can find from open sources there are 11 VH-3D's and 8 VH-60N's, they are planning to buy 28 VH-71's (I think 5 relatively 'green' aircraft first and 23 'missionized' aircraft later). With the added security concerns about continuity of government some of the extra ones (only 4 when you get down to it) are probably to ensure they can transport not only the President but some of his possible successors too.

Makes more sense but I still think based on the current state of the country we should go with 10 new H-60s and 5 state of the art VTCs. :icon_wink

 

[Dstar]

First flight of the H-3 Sea King was 11 Mar 1959. I am sure everyone agrees that technology has changed immensely since then. That coupled with the fact that we all do not know what we do not know is the reason for a replacement aircraft.

 

[phrogdriver]

I didn't realize they were replacing the 60's as well. What's wrong with them? Is this to get the cost/unit to go down, or were they just incapable of supporting the new comms suite the White House wanted?

The reason the 60s are there is because they're more transportable by cargo planes than the 3. Since the 71 is air transportable, I'm guessing HMX saw advantages in necking down their number of airframes.

 

[Uncle Fester]

That, and the President can step smartly down the pax ladder of the H-3. Looks better on TV than the hop-down from the -60. On such things are budget decisions based.

"This one airframe isn't perfect for all the missions we have to do while fighting our wars, but budget realities are what they are, and we simply can't afford a specialized airframe for every mission."
"BTW, we need a specialized helicopter for Executive Airlift. Let's buy one flown by no one else in the Dept of Defense."
"Brilliant!"

 

[mmx1]

"This one airframe isn't perfect for all the missions we have to do while fighting our wars, but budget realities are what they are, and we simply can't afford a specialized airframe for every mission."
"BTW, we need a specialized helicopter for Executive Airlift. Let's buy one flown by no one else in the Dept of Defense."
"Brilliant!"

Given how heavily the whitetops are modified and that they're contract maintenance anyway, I don't see how a common airframe will save any costs. Perhaps in pilot training, but that's a drop in the bucket.

Sikorsky apparently thought the S-92 was a better fit than any of the airframes they're already delivering to the DoD.

That, and the President can step smartly down the pax ladder of the H-3. Looks better on TV than the hop-down from the -60. On such things are budget decisions based.

But apparently not too smartly while boarding.

 

[phrogdriver]

Given how heavily the greentops are modified and that they're contract maintenance anyway, I don't see how a common airframe will save any costs. Perhaps in pilot training, but that's a drop in the bucket.

Whitetops?

 

[mmx1]

Whoops, saw green, thought green.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Sikorsky apparently thought the S-92 was a better fit than any of the airframes they're already delivering to the DoD.

Isn't the S-92 basically a stretch -60? Same avionics, airframe, everything, but a different fuselage?

 

[phrogpilot73]

Isn't the S-92 basically a stretch -60? Same avionics, airframe, everything, but a different fuselage?

Uh, no. It's a new build aircraft - sort of an in-between of the H-60 and the H-53. You can't have the same airframe and a different fuselage if it's semi-monococque... The fuselage is an integral part of the airframe.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Right, I meant avionics and engines, not airframe. I thought the idea was to have a larger a/c with as much commonality with the -60 as possible.

 

[VIZKRIEG]

But apparently not too smartly while boarding.

Regardless of what I think of our new CIC's politics, that's not a bad salute for a civilian.

 

[busdriver]

The original design concept of the 92 was to take the dynamic components of the 60 and mate them to a bigger fuselage. But, in the course of design many things changed, from the rumor I heard it had a lot to do with marketability as well as requirement changes. The 60 was built as a purely military aircraft, cost means less than capability. Same reason there are only a handful of civilian operated S-70s.

 

[Picaroon]

But apparently not too smartly while boarding.

I'm glad the AP is still putting out videos on the important issues.