The US Army selects new LUH to replace the mighty Huey

UH-1V_CE wrote:

NASA 736 wrote:  Just off the top of my head the folks at Sikorsky for example make machines suitable for both missions. I guess what I'm driving at is the lack of support by our government for our own aircraft and helicopter industry...I'm really going to start worring when we replace Air Force One with an Airbus.  Me thinks I smell "under-the-table" money at work here.  Etc-etc-etc, ad nausium! Sorry for the tirade, Chuck I am very glad we are going to make a German and French company wealthier for their support on our war on terror

These heli's are going to be build in the US by Sikorky, so the US industry does the work.

Sikorsky is in on it, but they won't actually be building them.  They will be built by EADS at a plant in Mississippi.  Sikorsky will get some benefit from the contract, since they are the primary sub-contractor, but make no mistake, this is NOT a Sikorsky aircraft.

Jon

Cobrahistorian wrote:

Sikorsky is in on it, but they won't actually be building them.  They will be built by EADS at a plant in Mississippi.  Sikorsky will get some benefit from the contract, since they are the primary sub-contractor, but make no mistake, this is NOT a Sikorsky aircraft. Jon

EADS will be making them, but the first 30 something will be built in Germany.  Even though they are built here, profits will still be going to Eurocopter (France and Germany).  SSSI (Sikorsky) will be the biggest subcontractor.  It is still unclear who will be preforming the maintainance, since the army said they want A&P certified mechanics working on them.  I gues SSSI will be doing all the mainainance too.

I'm not "up" on a lot of the new civilian helicopters, so does the EC-145 have it's roots in the Bo-105?  Sort of looks like one on steroids.  I'm an old 67N, Huey mechanice and crew chief.  Loved that bird!  One tour in Nam then a few years later I joined the Army Reserves and crewed UH-1H Medevacs before the "V" desingnation came to be.  There a a lot of folks still around because of that dependable machine.  I guess I'm one of them!

Melgyver wrote:

I'm not "up" on a lot of the new civilian helicopters, so does the EC-145 have it's roots in the Bo-105?  Sort of looks like one on steroids.  I'm an old 67N, Huey mechanice and crew chief.  Loved that bird!  One tour in Nam then a few years later I joined the Army Reserves and crewed UH-1H Medevacs before the "V" desingnation came to be.  There a a lot of folks still around because of that dependable machine.  I guess I'm one of them!

Yes, it has its roots from the BO105 and BK117.

The Army has changed the UH designation.  No longer will it mean Utility Helicopter.  With the selection of the EC145 as the new Light Utility Helicopter, the designation will now stand for:

UGLY HELICOPTER.

Cobrahistorian wrote:

The Army has changed the UH designation.  No longer will it mean Utility Helicopter.  With the selection of the EC145 as the new Light Utility Helicopter, the designation will now stand for: UGLY HELICOPTER.

Yea, its fugly!

UH-1V_CE wrote:

It is still unclear who will be preforming the maintainance, since the army said they want A&P certified mechanics working on them.  I gues SSSI will be doing all the mainainance too.

I was shocked at the number of civillian mechs who were brought down to Haiti in '04 to maintain the Army's Chinook and Blachawk units there on the joint deployment that occurred after the rumbles of violence. Is this the way things are going nowadays? Civillians on deployment sure aren't any help if gomers are probing the perimeter....

I have mixed emotions about the 145.  I hope that it does well.  One visited here a few months ago and it certianly seems to have more flexibility built into it.  If the Army truly gets it off the shelf then it will be easy to work on, all nonstructural access panels are secured with camlocs.  The 412 does have more room and is a proven US military design. 

Corrosion will be an interesting subject.  If the typical Army maintenance schedule is applied to the 145, most of the corrosion should be caught before it becomes an issue.  I don't know what the specific areas where this is a problem are, if they are structural or involve major components it could be a tough road ahead.

From what I have seen, the 145 won the competition on the merits of lifecycle cost and performance.  It seems that it outperformed all competitors by quite a margin.  Whether or not it was the right choice will not be known for quite some time. 

Never fear though, I am sure that the Army will keep Hueys around for a while.  If they had bought the twin when the Navy first got them I don't think that we would even be having this discussion. 

I am skeptical about the plan to use A&P mechanics.  I believe that will mean all contract maintenance.  The crewchief will be nothing more than a sweaty green flight attendant that knows how to operate a hoist.  The military is contracting more and more jobs that I believe that Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines should be doing.  When we deployed, there were 40 contractors at out camp that were supposed to take care of our maintenance.  Our maintenance officer told all but 10 or so that he didn't need them and our maintenance company would handle it all and the contractors that were left would assist with phase maintenance.  I have nothing against the contractors, I just believe that military maintainers have more of a vested interest in their job.  Maintenance experience is also critical to those who want to be a flightcrew member.  Crewchiefs should be among the most experienced maintainers in the unit.

I am disappointed to see a forigen company building US Military equipment.  I can only pray that the future proves that the 145 was chosen for all of the right reasons.

Mac

LemonJello wrote:

Well, if/when there's a kit of it, I propose the first dio idea:  A wrecked EC145 being sling-loaded by a Huey.

hoorah to that

LemonJello wrote:

Well, if/when there's a kit of it, I propose the first dio idea:  A wrecked EC145 being sling-loaded by a Huey.

I think that I could get a wreck in the back of a Hawk

Mac

There are a few kits out in 1/32 and 1/72 for the civilian version (Revell and Heller)

Why are you all so critical about the ec-145? I mean, it's a development from an tried and trusted military desgin (the Bo-105) so it should work fine.

Nothing will ever replace the huey. 

Lee

RemcoGrob wrote:

Why are you all so critical about the ec-145? I mean, it's a development from an tried and trusted military desgin (the Bo-105) so it should work fine.

It's Foreign. don't we have enough foreign built equipment in this country already? besides if the BO-105 is such a trusted design(which i do agree with) then why don't they use it instead of something developed from it?

hmmm.... now that I'm actually learning the Longbow system, I disagree.  The stuff this thing can do is amazing.  Granted the FCR is completely unnecessary, but the Longbow itself is one heck of an incredible piece of equipment and it is light years ahead of the A model. 

The Comanche (one M guys) was an incredible aircraft, but it took too long to develop.  Congress has this idea that if you space a project out over a longer period of time it is cheaper.  It isn't. It drives the per-unit cost of an aircraft through the roof, ala Comanche and Raptor.  The per-unit cost went from an intended $3 million apiece to a whopping $60 million apiece.  By comparison, the latest Longbow costs $28 million per copy.

The problem with the Longbow is again politics.  The aircraft that was fielded in 1998 (Block 1, Lot 1-4) was not what the D model was supposed to be.  Its development was drawn out over several years, and then it was pushed into production before the system was ready.  While systems in the early D model were a great advancement over the A model, it was not until last year, when the Block 2 Lot 8 birds came out that the "intended" Longbow hit the Army.  The leap in technology from the Block 1 to Block 2 is almost as great a leap as from the A to the D model.  The "further" developments on the Longbow system were to attempt a seamless transition in systems from the AH-64D to the AH-66A.  Also remember, the Comanche was never intended to replace the Apache.  Systems and technology upgrades for the -64 were planned all along. 

Now granted, I'm well aware of the Longbow's shortcomings as well.  The "all weather" capability is anything but!  It is the most advanced attack helicopter out there, but it has limitations too (all of which I'm desperately trying to memorize right now!)

Believe me, I realize how much of an 800lb paperweight the APG-78 radar system is, but the aircraft itself is an incredible piece of technology and is getting better from the infusion of Comanche DNA, just like the UH-60M (which I've seen, one WICKED aircraft!) and the CH-47F.  The crap we can do with it is unbelieveable and getting better all the time.  I'm just learning the system, but I lost count the number of times I said "you can DO that with this?" today!

The UH-72, however, will not benefit from any of this stuff.  Instead, it is a quick-fix solution, which adopts a COTS (Commercial, Off The Shelf) solution to a mission requirement that will probably expand to well outside of this aircraft's capabilities, including overseas deployments.  Its a civilian aircraft and will always be a civilian aircraft.   If it ever gets shot at, its gonna be in a world of hurt. 

I think my biggest issue with it is twofold. Firstly, it isn't an American helicopter.  Sure, we flew Spitfires, Beaufighters and Mosquitos during WWII, and they did great things for our military, but times have changed.  With the world the way it is nowadays, I'd rather the benefit be going to a US aircraft manufacturer so they can further invest in putting out better products (and ultimately make my butt more survivable!).  And second, its a quick-fix solution instead of being a purpose-designed military aircraft.  It isn't gonna hold up to a military environment. 

Stepping down now. 

Can't figure out how this selection process works, but it is kind of funny how congress (being not really a military agency) have such a power to decide which system should be adopt by our military. 

In early 1990's, ROK Airforce was going through selection process for their new fighter.  Air Force evaluated several planes (F/A18, F16 and Mirage) and they concluded that F/A-18 was their top choice.  Instead, ROK government chose F-16 over F/A-18.  Later on, people found out that government officials were heavily influenced by lobbyists (but those officials denied and they said they chose F-16 because of better pricing).  Military gear should be select by people who are going to use it.

O.K.  I guess some would ask what else could you expect from a Blackhawk baby but the 145 seems pretty well suited for the stated mission of the LUH.  I would rather see a U.S. based company get the contract and I think that the U.S. manufacturers in the competition offered capable aircraft.  I really think any of the types could have performed the mission.  My real problem is with the maintenance side.  LUH maintenance will be all contract.  Crews will get the bird, fly the mission and turn it over at the end of the mission.  If it breaks away from home you are stuck until maintenance can get to you.  I am afraid that the military will try to slowly change as much maint. as possible to contract leaving no crewmembers on the aircraft with hands on experience.

I don't mean to sound as if I think that contractors do poor work.  I just beiliev that this takes a critical resource away from the crew when something isn't right.  If we have a problem, I am capable of diagnosing it and relating it to the maintenance officer when necessary.  In many cases I can effect a repair that will get us home.  I read oil stains fluently and I have a good ear for main rotor noises.  With exclusive contract maintenance you won't have that experience on the crew.

Mac