CSAR-X

[DA SWO]

Looks like CSAR-X will be a HH-60M.

Heads should have rolled when the original award was overturned.

http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikor...cmid=fb6bfa503f8d6410VgnVCM1000004f62529fRCRD

 

[AWP]

Didn't the rescue community ask for anything but a -60 derivative?

 

[amlove21]

Didn't the rescue community ask for anything but a -60 derivative?

Well it depends on what "community" we are talking about.

The Helo guys and the Teams are two different entities, however, don't have the same backing or thrust in the conversation. Why we would ever continue to go with the 60 (light power, no altitude, minimal space, etc) over something like, I don't know, the 46/47 variant is just beyond me. Just smething bigger, stronger, faster than the 60. Maybe even something that could, you know, carry vehicles, or a security team, or anything that could help out during rescue ops.

But, again, what I want and what the helicopter community wants could be vastly different. I just wanna treat patients in a vehicle that can get me and 20 other fully loaded dudes there.

 

[AWP]

But, again, what I want and what the helicopter community wants could be vastly different. I just wanna treat patients in a vehicle that can get me and 20 other fully loaded dudes there.

And the other half is...

 

[Muppet]

And the other half is...

God fucking damn it Free! What can be seen cannot be unseen!

F.M.

 

[amlove21]

And the other half is...

I wish I had some clue. I know there are some smart dudes out there, but other than protecting the legacy, I just don't see what the difference in vertical lift platforms means to the 'rescue triad'.

 

[DA SWO]

I wish I had some clue. I know there are some smart dudes out there, but other than protecting the legacy, I just don't see what the difference in vertical lift platforms means to the 'rescue triad'.

Let me make a uninformed, semi-educated educated guess.
Money, or lack there of.
HH-60M is essentially a proven/known quantity that can be had relatively cheap.
I don't know the cost difference, but would think a HH-47 would take money from the KC-46/F-35 community (Thank you Sec Gates).

@amlove21 Was the H-92's performance better then the HH-60's?

 

[amlove21]

Let me make a uninformed, semi-educated educated guess.
Money, or lack there of.
HH-60M is essentially a proven/known quantity that can be had relatively cheap.
I don't know the cost difference, but would think a HH-47 would take money from the KC-46/F-35 community (Thank you Sec Gates).

@amlove21 Was the H-92's performance better then the HH-60's?

The MH 47 is a known quantity and proven. Fastest helo in the inventory w the most power. Thought to be a 'trash hauler' prior to OEF.

As for the 92's performance- I liked it well above the 60. Issues,sure. But personal preference? 53. All day.

 

[Ranger Psych]

53 or a 47 just seem like they'd be a good match for ya'lls mission, all things considered. Especially since those are the only 2 platforms that can bring something home versus having to blow the snot out of it hoping it gets destroyed enough, while having the room to work casualties inside "comfortably"

 

[AWP]

Plus with a -47 you could carry some Security Forces to protect you. They could put the "combat" in "combat rescue."

 

[DA SWO]

The MH 47 is a known quantity and proven. Fastest helo in the inventory w the most power. Thought to be a 'trash hauler' prior to OEF.

As for the 92's performance- I liked it well above the 60. Issues,sure. But personal preference? 53. All day.

Then why do the pilots keep gravitating towards the smaller airframes?

 

[amlove21]

Then why do the pilots keep gravitating towards the smaller airframes?

No clue, really. I think it might be my ignorance, but I just can't see/understand why.

 

[AWP]

Then why do the pilots keep gravitating towards the smaller airframes?

I have to wonder if it is a combination of fiscal, operational needs (probably a cheaper airframe and there's minimal retraining involved for aircrew and maintainers, plus facilities and squadrons are built around the -60 airframe), the mission isn't "sexy" or totally embraced by Big Blue (ACC to be specific),a dn the need for a large patient capacity is discarded ("The GWOT is an aberration, PJ's don't do MASCAL scenarios, small crews = small PR airframes"). This could even be a political compromise/ vote-getter for all we know.

Cynically I have to wonder if the pilots don't like the -47 because it is a flying box and the Hawk is a bit more "sporty" looking to the eye.

As a non-aviator I understand the -47's performance exceeds the -60's and is more suitable for PR, but I'd place my bets on this coming down to money (training and existing facilities) and manpower (Hawk has 4, Chinook has a minimum of 5...and I can't speak to the maintenance manning requirements).

 

[Red-Dot]

Plus with a -47 you could carry some Security Forces to protect you. They could put the "combat" in "combat rescue."

Security Farces make me nauseous.

 

[DA SWO]

I have to wonder if it is a combination of fiscal, operational needs (probably a cheaper airframe and there's minimal retraining involved for aircrew and maintainers, plus facilities and squadrons are built around the -60 airframe), the mission isn't "sexy" or totally embraced by Big Blue (ACC to be specific),a dn the need for a large patient capacity is discarded ("The GWOT is an aberration, PJ's don't do MASCAL scenarios, small crews = small PR airframes"). This could even be a political compromise/ vote-getter for all we know.

Cynically I have to wonder if the pilots don't like the -47 because it is a flying box and the Hawk is a bit more "sporty" looking to the eye.

As a non-aviator I understand the -47's performance exceeds the -60's and is more suitable for PR, but I'd place my bets on this coming down to money (training and existing facilities) and manpower (Hawk has 4, Chinook has a minimum of 5...and I can't speak to the maintenance manning requirements).

Good points.

 

[Blizzard]

Then why do the pilots keep gravitating towards the smaller airframes?

It's not so much the pilots as it is the politicians. The -60 won by default when the RFP was rewritten in a way that pre-determined the "winner". The RFP process sucks...

The initial award of CSAR-X to the -47 was probably the right call given the offerings. Let's see, the requested need was for:

• Speed
• Range
• Cabin Space (3 PJs and 4 litters)
• Survivability
• Battlespace Awareness
• All Weather Operability

And these are all strengths of this new -60 varaint? Hmmm.

SOAR doesn't seem to have an issues with their variant of the -47.

Sadly, rather than getting the right equipment down range for the mission, the cynic in me says "real" requirements appear to be:

• Who has what current contracts; should Boeing get another? or should it be spread around?
• Who is the most power with the most constituents at risk should a contract not be awarded?
• etc..

 

[policemedic]

Security Farces make me nauseous.

Hater.

 

[SkrewzLoose]

Plus with a -47 you could carry some Security Forces to protect you. They could put the "combat" in "combat rescue."

Hmm, I seem to have heard that somewhere before...
I trust my royalty check is in the mail.

 

[Teufel]

And the other half is...

Ahhhh Papua New Guinea. Very familiar unfortunately

 

[amlove21]

Plus with a -47 you could carry some Security Forces to protect you. They could put the "combat" in "combat rescue."

LOL. They tried once, and called it DAGR, and it failed. Miserably. I would prefer a force that knows how to do security, thats just me.

It's not so much the pilots as it is the politicians. The -60 won by default when the RFP was rewritten in a way that pre-determined the "winner". The RFP process sucks...

The initial award of CSAR-X to the -47 was probably the right call given the offerings. Let's see, the requested need was for:

• Speed
• Range
• Cabin Space (3 PJs and 4 litters)
• Survivability
• Battlespace Awareness
• All Weather Operability

And these are all strengths of this new -60 varaint? Hmmm.

SOAR doesn't seem to have an issues with their variant of the -47.

Sadly, rather than getting the right equipment down range for the mission, the cynic in me says "real" requirements appear to be:

• Who has what current contracts; should Boeing get another? or should it be spread around?
• Who is the most power with the most constituents at risk should a contract not be awarded?
• etc..

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Phew, thanks man, I haven't laughed like that since I was a little girl. Maybe they mean litters unfolded, or still in the SKEDCO bags....