[Slater]

I hope nobody's betting the farm on the USAF committing to this program. (From February's "National Defense" magazine):



Army Not Ready to Surrender Heavy Chopper

Helicopter manufacturers have patiently been waiting for two decades for the Army to make up its mind on whether and when it will build a new heavy-lift chopper. This big-ticket acquisition — estimated to cost as much as $85 billion for 500 aircraft — may finally be showing signs of life.

The Army has budgeted more than $20 million over the next two years to begin designing a new heavy-lift helicopter, said Paul Bogosian, Army program executive officer for aviation. But officials acknowledge that the project will not go far unless the Air Force agrees to participate. The new chopper potentially could replace the Army’s Chinook and also supplement the Air Force’s C-130 fleet. “We’re waiting to see when the stars align to allow us to take the next step,” Bogosian told an industry conference.

The Congressional Budget Office calculated that development costs for the “joint heavy lift” aircraft will be about $14 billion over a period of 17 years. To produce 500 aircraft at a rate of 32 per year, the price tag would average about $170 million per aircraft.

[JamesG123]

Congress needs to kick the Army in the ass and make them just buy "UH-101s" and forget about gargantuan choppers that can carry a loaded Stryker faster than a speeding bullet.

(Hopefully) the days when the services could pussy-foot around with big expensive proprietary equipment and flirt with pet projects that go no where (ie: Crusader, Comanche, XM-8, FCS, etc) are over. The country can't aford them.

[Slater]

Too bad they can't take a look at the USMC's upcoming CH-53K, or is that not enough of an upgrade over the Chinook?

[Ivanhoe]

Even at $50 mil apiece all up, not gonna happen. The Army goes thru its HLH phase about every 10-12 years. Every time either we are in a war, or in a drawdown, or something, and the requirements curve and the funding curve diverge. So a few million here and there gets spent on a paper design exercise that gets shelved.

Doing the design exercise is fine, and for all we know Army aviation may get some ginormous budget boost down the road that could fund the thing. Unless they're trying to kill it off, I don't see the point of throwing around such big $ figures at this stage, its only going to attract problems.

I'm definitely for an HLH for the Army, but not if they're going to Comanche-ize it. Total design spec of no more than 10 pages, 3 years to 1st detailed design, 3 more years to 1st flight, 3 more years to 1st delivery airframe. A-model is just mechanicals with limited flight deck; throw on the Web 2.0 and carbon nanoseatcovers stuff later on.

This post has been edited by Ivanhoe: 27 January 2008 - 0114 AM

[shep854]

Slater, on Sun 27 Jan 2008 0058, said:

Too bad they can't take a look at the USMC's upcoming CH-53K, or is that not enough of an upgrade over the Chinook?

OT, but why can't the Air Force look at an HH-53K, since the '53s are already in the AF system? If Boeing wants to play heavy rescue helo, trump them with an HH-53K and quit bellyaching about rules of competition.

There! Thread drifting in only four posts!

[Lampshade111]

I would argue we should make it bigger than the MI-26 just to piss off the Russians but I don't think we need it that big.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

It seems like a lot of money to spend on something with a rather narrow mission.

[Bearded-Dragon]

Lampshade111, on Sun 27 Jan 2008 1116, said:

I would argue we should make it bigger than the MI-26 just to piss off the Russians but I don't think we need it that big.

Why not just the Mi-26? Its more than adequate for the job, its in production and its proved to be very good at doing what is needed. NIH of course would prevent the US Army accepting such a simply, straightforward solution.

[Lampshade111]

The not-designed-here factor. I believe we could design a better system but the problem these days is with the whole procurement system.

[shep854]

To my eye, the CH-54 appeared to be a stripped down H-3. I have always wondered why the same could not be done with the CH-5E/K. Getting rid of the full fuselage should free up several tons of lift capacity. For those worried about a One-Trick Pony, hey, there's always BattleBoxes*. :P

*I know, I know; the modular concept did not catch on with the CH-54. All those pesky 'Hooks, I suppose.

[BansheeOne]

I tried to look up what the requirements for the heavy lift project are and what name it has today. My head hurts.

Lifting a Stryker over 250 nm is probably not much different from the Franco-German FTH requirement, which looks at carrying two VBLs or one VAB, Fennek or Dingo each internally over 1,000 km. But partnering would probably make entirely too much sense for the real world again. Which is a pity, since 200 aircraft planned for the US and 120 for France and Germany are not economically-looking numbers for developing something with that stats as it is.

[Praet]

I always thought the main purpose of the Joint Heavy Lift was to haul a single FCS vehicle around, not just a Stryker.
That would place it well above anything set as a requirement for the Fraco-German FTH, which - in terms of performance - basically is a CH-53K with a larger cabin to accomodate e.g. a Dingo internally and longer range.
IMHO it would make a lot more sense to go for the CH-53K, drop some of the more ambitious requirements and save a whole lot of money doing so. To be honest, I never understood the need to internally carry a Dingo over long distances, and thats pretty much the only thing the CH-53K couldn't do (a Dingo would have to be carried externally)

[seahawk]

Yes, now would be a chance to get a new HLH quite cheap. The US throws in the CH-53K transmission and dynamic systems, the european built a new fuselage around it. 320 of those helicopters would be needed and everyone would save money.

Instead the US HLH willl remain a papaer program and the europeans might end up with westernizing the Mil-26.

[Talyn]

JamesG123, on Sun 27 Jan 2008 0013, said:

Congress needs to kick the Army in the ass and make them just buy "UH-101s" and forget about gargantuan choppers that can carry a loaded Stryker faster than a speeding bullet.

(Hopefully) the days when the services could pussy-foot around with big expensive proprietary equipment and flirt with pet projects that go no where (ie: Crusader, Comanche, XM-8, FCS, etc) are over. The country can't aford them.

The UH-101 is not a heavy lift helo.

[Talyn]

As mentioned a new version of the Skycrane would be a good approach.

This post has been edited by Talyn: 27 January 2008 - 1256 PM

[Lampshade111]

JamesG123, on Sat 26 Jan 2008 1913, said:

(Hopefully) the days when the services could pussy-foot around with big expensive proprietary equipment and flirt with pet projects that go no where (ie: Crusader, Comanche, XM-8, FCS, etc) are over. The country can't aford them.

The Crusader was a fine system that was on track and would have been quite useful if not for some guy and his "vision" for the Army. Continuing that program would have probably been easier than those whole NLOS-C deal.

[Special-K]

Lampshade111, on Sun 27 Jan 2008 1434, said:

The Crusader was a fine system that was on track and would have been quite useful if not for some guy and his "vision" for the Army. Continuing that program would have probably been easier than those whole NLOS-C deal.

Agreed. The Crusader would have been a heck of a system. Now the US Army is stuck with the still solid but definatly showing it's age Paladin.

Somehow, I think the Crusader would have been a much better gun than the NLOS-C will be.


As for the XM8, I think that would have been a great replacement for the Sheridan. (On second thought, by XM-8 you meant the Rifle, not the light Tank Armored Gun System. Sorry. :) )




-K

This post has been edited by Special-K: 27 January 2008 - 1504 PM

[Special-K]

I wonder if the US Army will be considering a larger Osprey type aircraft with 2 wings and 4 engines/props.





-K

[Praet]

The QuadTiltrotor indeed is one of the designs considered for Joint Heavy Lift.

[Ivanhoe]

Using legacy dynamic systems from Sikorsky or Mil is going to make the $/hr too high due to maintenance. That's one of the conundrums that the Army has to wrestle with. If they go with all new hardware designed for low operating cost, the purchase price is too high. If they go with legacy hardware, the operating cost is too high.

HLHs have all sorts of applications beyond just moving Strykers, but only if you can afford enough of them to deploy a bunch around the world, and the cost/hr is sane.

If by "Battle Boxes" you mean AirGavins, by golly you're onto something! :)