The fight for the CRH continues and it looks like Sikorsky is now actively running with the ball.
Quite honestly this raises two questions for me. Is the support that we're seeing from retired Airmen real or is it astroturf. We've seen such efforts before with the F-35 and the EFV and I'm wondering if we're seeing it here.
Second. I have sent e-mails but they aren't answering. Why did Sikorsky go forward with new build H-60's instead of the larger and roomier S-92's? That is the one helicopter that I really expected to take off in military circles but it just hasn't (its been extremely successful in the civilian market). The S-92 looks like a better fit for the CRH mission but Sikorsky didn't offer it. Why?
This one is easy...to meet the price tag.The S-92 would be more or less in the same price as the AW101 i.e.
ReplyDeleteThe CRH-60 is a platform allready in service...price was the main reason they retired the S-92 and put the H-60 in the game.
But i read in some place that the CRH-60 as more room and more range than the HH-60.Dont know the details...
The S-92 has had some pretty serious problems of its own in civilian service. Look up 'S-92 gearbox problem' for details.
ReplyDeleteAlso, attempts to adapt it for military service in Canada have been, shall we say, problematic. I'm not saying they're all Sikorsky's fault, but they made a bunch of promises they've never been able to fulfil, and that's scared off other buyers. Look up 'ch-148 cyclone problems' for details.
I agree that the S-92 should be, and should have been, a winner as a military helicopter; but with so many issues surrounding it from its earliest days, it's never been successful in that market. I suspect it's probably too late now, particularly since it occupies a niche between the Blackhawk and heavy-lift choppers such as the CH-47 and the CH-53. It's too easy to farm out the mid-range missions to bigger or smaller helicopters, and focus the budget (such as it is) on existing platforms.
I've got to get behind this thing, on the sake of principle.
ReplyDeleteSay congress sends you to war in a tank and you go fight and win and wear out the barrel and tracks in the process, and then they say "well since its broken we're just going to retire your tank and you can ride this humvee from now on". WTF.
No doubt there is a cheaper way to do it, when it comes to the USA there usually is. But how cheap are we really. Additional capability is always something to seek. Most of the excessive spending was related to the wars in one way or another and they are almost done. The current administration is losing popularity in the second term. So party change is plausible. The austerity period isn't forever. I've heard peeps go toxic on good programs over funding of those programs or for funding for their own programs when the funds may actually be there. The same exact thing happened during the second term of the Clinton administration.
When people talk about reinventing the wheel I think a lot of it was to do with being obsessed about low risk and COTS R+D. They say there is risk associated with unproven technologies and its true..to an extent, if you're afraid to do something innovative why do it at all, and what if it doesn't stay ahead of the enemy.
Innovation and excellence don't thrive in a 'I can't' atmosphere.
Combat Search and Rescue is "Essential". Now, given that we are $17T in debt, let us all stand now for the Marine Corps Hymn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJlNw0myBG4
ReplyDeleteHow about simple reason that CRH-60 is just another UH-60 after some pimp my helo ? The same parts, the same flight characteristic, no need for new supply chain, no need for new extensive crew training, no need for new infrastructure...
ReplyDeleteMoney savings.