PDA

View Full Version : USAF to replace rescue helos


dsumner
18 January 2006, 15:26
Air Force to replace combat search and rescue helicopters

by Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez
Air Force Print News

1/18/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Air Force combat search and rescue teams will use a new helicopter -- the now under development CSAR-X -- to help recover downed pilots around 2012.

The new helicopter will replace 101 HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters Air Force combat search and rescue teams now use.

The Air Force expects to begin purchasing the new aircraft by fiscal 2009, with delivery by fiscal 2011. They will be operational in fiscal 2012.

The cost of the new system is not yet determined because it will be based on the final source selection, said Lt. Col. Dave Morgan, combat search and rescue program element monitor for Air Force acquisition.

The Air Force must enhance the Pave Hawk fleet's size and availability for use by combatant commanders, said Lt. Col. Michael T. Healy, Air Force deputy division chief for mobility, combat search and rescue and special operations requirements.

"The HH-60 also has capability shortfalls, predominantly in range and in cabin size," he said. "It is just fundamentally too small of an aircraft to do the mission we are asking it to do."

The Air Force is considering several replacements for the HH-60. They are all based on existing helicopters which need modification to meet Air Force needs.

The replacement doesn't have to be a helicopter. But a fiscal 2002 analysis of alternatives determined a helicopter would probably be the most cost effective answer to Air Force Special Operations Command's call for a new airframe.

"We will select that which has the most benefit and cost-effective solution and will then take that decision forward, meet a milestone decision with the defense acquisition board and award a contract in Fiscal 2006," Colonel Morgan said.

Building a new search and rescue platform on top of an existing airframe will bring the new hardware to pararescuemen sooner. And it will be more cost effective, Colonel Morgan said.

The CSAR-X requirements will make up for many of the HH-60’s shortfalls -- most notably its size.

Colonel Healy said, "If (the HH-60) were fundamentally a bigger aircraft, there would be other things we could do to it, such as improving the engines and adding different systems that could meet our requirements. But when you have an aircraft that small you just can't add any more to it. There is no more room."

Colonel Healy said, “no matter which candidate wins CSAR-X, it will include room for more specialized equipment and -- perhaps even more critical -- for more injured passengers.”

An increase in cabin size was a requirement developed by direct involvement with the search and rescue community -- specifically with pararescuemen who fly in the HH-60. The cabin size requirement was so important, Colonel Healy said, that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, chaired by then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, elevated it to the level of "key performance parameter"

The effective space in the HH-60’s cargo area allows for only one injured person on a stretcher. In the CSAR-X, pararescuemen will have room for four stretchers. In the past, rescuers in an HH-60 were forced to leave equipment behind at a landing zone to accommodate extra passengers.

The CSAR-X will have an auto hover mode that will shoot approaches and do landings without pilots having to touch the controls. These kinds of additions will help pilots during landing under brownout conditions.

Requirements also specify the replacement aircraft be able to travel greater distances. The HH-60 can fly about 160 nautical miles, do a 30-minute rescue operation and return. The CSAR-X will be able to double the range to some 325 nautical miles.

The Air Force will add 141 CSAR-X aircraft will to its combat search and rescue forces. They will provide units more capability. At that time, HH-60s will begin to retire.

The benefit of the new airframe will extend beyond the Air Force. The combat search and rescue capability will benefits all services. That fact was reemphasized when the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated the requirement for the aircraft, Colonel Healy said.

"They made a very strong statement that this is a critical capability for our combatant commanders all over the world," he said. "We can go places others can't. The CSAR-X is a very efficient and interdependent way to exercise this capability -- so we can rescue those Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and downed Airmen.

“This has a lot of joint impact,” he said.
_________________

SN
18 January 2006, 16:40
Well, I am guessing the US101 and HH47 are probably the front runners.

I wonder if the 4 stretcher requirement is a minimum, or maximum? That could drive airframe choice.

busdriver
18 January 2006, 21:48
Screw the 101, if we're gonna get a big helo, let's get the 47. The 92 is only marginally bigger than the 60 as far as footprint over the ground, but the cabin is provides a significant improvement in size.

Here's something I haven't really thought about, what do the army guys want us to get?

Pavejimm
18 January 2006, 22:36
Screw the 101, if we're gonna get a big helo, let's get the 47. The 92 is only marginally bigger than the 60 as far as footprint over the ground, but the cabin is provides a significant improvement in size.

Here's something I haven't really thought about, what do the army guys want us to get?


Bro's....

Pavejimm
18 January 2006, 22:37
Screw the 101, if we're gonna get a big helo, let's get the 47. The 92 is only marginally bigger than the 60 as far as footprint over the ground, but the cabin is provides a significant improvement in size.

Here's something I haven't really thought about, what do the army guys want us to get?


Boys,

If the 47 is not selected, then you will have nothing to bitch about when the CV-22 has to pick up your slack:D .

python52
20 January 2006, 11:28
Personnaly I'm in a quandry,

First , I would like you to pass on the 47 because once the Air Force enters the Boeing logistics sceme, that will be the last time the Army will get a part.

Second, if the AF gets the 47 that might open a lot of slots for my talents in places physically not located in former swamps.

Rotor Strike please
20 January 2006, 15:42
I'd love the 47 if they could come up with HIRS for the engines and made the thing less of an RPG magnet. I also would want a better TFTA than they currently have. And lastly, as cool as it would be, it's really too big for our needs. Could you imagine a -47 doing the type of rescues we were doing in NOLA? No way in hell.

Pavejimm
21 January 2006, 11:00
I'd love the 47 if they could come up with HIRS for the engines and made the thing less of an RPG magnet. I also would want a better TFTA than they currently have. And lastly, as cool as it would be, it's really too big for our needs. Could you imagine a -47 doing the type of rescues we were doing in NOLA? No way in hell.

Not sure how the HIRS on the engines make it less of an RPG magnet...maybe your thiking MANPADS.

Anyway, I got an up close look at the 101 the other day at Pax River. It is a lot bigger than I thought, somewhere between a 60 and a 53.

Rotor Strike please
21 January 2006, 11:49
Not sure how the HIRS on the engines make it less of an RPG magnet...maybe your thiking MANPADS.

Anyway, I got an up close look at the 101 the other day at Pax River. It is a lot bigger than I thought, somewhere between a 60 and a 53.

I meant that I want HIRS on it, and I also want them to make it less of an RPG magnet. That way, anything close to a rocket, rocket propelled grenade, missile, MANPAD, IR guided slingshot, etc. wont hit it.

busdriver
22 January 2006, 16:20
I still think the 92 is the best choice for what we need, hopefully it has better high/hot abilities.

Rotor Strike please
23 January 2006, 14:05
I still think the 92 is the best choice for what we need, hopefully it has better high/hot abilities.

Not with the engines it has in there right now. It's going to be another H-3. Hide and watch.

busdriver
23 January 2006, 14:13
I don't know about H-3, probably closer to what we've got now, according to their website it's been flown alot heavier than it's max gross (30k vs 26k) and that's based on engines that are putting out something like 2500, I've heard rumors from various sources that that model line is capable of something like 3000. Not saying it's not going to have problems, cause let's face it no matter what we get the AF will slowly and steadily strap more and more shit on it until it's just as underpowered as the Pavehawk.

Rotor Strike please
23 January 2006, 16:49
I don't know about H-3, probably closer to what we've got now, according to their website it's been flown alot heavier than it's max gross (30k vs 26k) and that's based on engines that are putting out something like 2500, I've heard rumors from various sources that that model line is capable of something like 3000. Not saying it's not going to have problems, cause let's face it no matter what we get the AF will slowly and steadily strap more and more shit on it until it's just as underpowered as the Pavehawk.

How true that is!