S-92 Procurement Potential Snags (Split from: Canada considers purchase of used US Army Chinooks)

[a_majoor]

Given the small size of our airforce, I am a bit uncomfortable about the potential proliferation of helicopter types. While individually each real or proposed type is probably world class, the O&M costs will eventually eat the fleet if we are not careful.

The S-92 offers a wonderful opportunity; we are getting some for the Navy, so we can extend the buy for a "Green" medium lift bird for the Army, and then work on supplementing the Griffin fleet with one of the evolved versions of the Blackhawk (the UH 60M version seems to have the same rotor and engine combination as the S-92, if I am reading the promo on the Sikorsky site correctly). There will probably be enough differences between the various versions that any flaws will only affect a portion of the fleet, yet enough similarities that we can reap substantial logistical advantages.

 

[Good2Golf]

A-majoor, only problem being S92 doesn't even lift the M777 or other battlefield systems that must be lifted by TACL in theatre (i.e. 7t PLS pallets, etc...)  While there are issues with multiple fleets, they are not insurmountable.  Interestingly, 10 TAG (precursor to 1 Wing) operated three fleets with fewer PY's than 1 Wing has for a single fleet today.  Proof that many airframes and organization has is a greater forctor than how many types of aircraft an organization has.  If you were to extend that logic to land systems, you would be wanting to eliminate MGS, MMEV, TUA(LAV) and LAV and replace those systems with a single system that could shoot multiple weapons and carry troops...not sure everybody is at that point of thinking yet...

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Jantor]

hello,

What about the Sikorsky CH-53 then? I understand they are planning to start contruction on a new variant. CH-53(K?)

Does Sikorsky use common equipment and systems in their various aircraft? buying in bulk and limiting the number of suppliers should increase Sikorsky's profit margin I should think.

Thanks in advance

 

[GINge!]

issue IMHO is the folding head, the design for which is not finalized as I understand it.

Closer to thread, if the Chinook is selected as the machine that best meets the CF's TALC requirement, I truly hope we buy it "straight off the shelf" in US Army/SOCOM configuration (depending on whether the F or G model is chosen)...

Cheers,
Duey

Hey Duey, regarding Off The Shelf, have you heard any scuttlebutt regarding a number of CH-47's originally destined for the RAF that are now sitting in the USA , shrinkwrapped and looking for a new home?

I'm no aviation SME, but methinks it would be very easy to write an SOR with parameters which only the 'hook would meet.

 

[Good2Golf]

GINge, they're no longer in play.  The real issue was that MoD changed departmental software specification while the aircraft were still being manufactured in Philly and thus no longer complied with Mod-specs (although they still fully met the spec they were contracted to meet).

The HC.2 Mk2a/HC.2 Mk.3 (a.k.a. UK Chinook Mk2a and Mk3) issue is being straightened out.  The aircraft in question were eight MH-47G's spec'd for MoD requirements and assigned RAF designation HC.2 (Helicopter, Cargo; in-service model #2 - the Chinook, the Puma is an HC.1) Mk3.  Mk2 is standard UK Chinook and Mk2a is current SOF model.

Apparently, Whitehall didn't want to procure the machines because of extreme budgetary limitations and was looking for a way out.  The implication that the HC2 Mk3's failed to meet spec made it look like Boeing hadn't built the machines properly, which was far from the case.  The MoD mandated that the RAF restrict the machines to VFR operations only with no low-level flight authorized.  The way it was portrayed made the British electorate think they had been ripped off buying some kind of a lemon.  It is rumoured that the issue was straightened out when the CO of 22 SAS was called to testify in front of the Lords as to why the aircraft were still needed...(the RAF apparently did a poor job explaining it.)  When asked about what he required, he responded, "My dear Lords...give me my f***ing Chinooks!" and apparently closed his papers, stood up, and left the room.  It would seem that "Who dares, wins!"  The MoD was directed to continue procurement and acceptance of the new Chinooks with a grandfathered software spec that met the requirements of the day they were contracted from Boeing.  I'm not sure if they're at the squadron yet, Boscombe Downs may have a bit more flight testing to do but they will be brought into service shortly.

That story was told to me by an ex-RAF/ex-Chinook pilot and if not the exact details, I don't doubt the substance of the story as recounted...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

 

[a_majoor]

It is rumoured that the issue was straightened out when the CO of 22 SAS was called to testify in front of the Lords as to why the aircraft were still needed...(the RAF apparently did a poor job explaining it.)  When asked about what he required, he responded, "My dear Lords...give me my f***ing Chinooks!" and apparently closed his papers, stood up, and left the room. 

Forget the Chinooks, get the Colonel!