-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
AH-1Z and UH-1Y Doomed?
- Thread starter FLYMARINES
- Start date
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
For a dedicated combat support bird, I would want 2 cabin doors with 2 guns like the 60S.
Why would the Marines want the B/F/H short footprint? Less stable on ground, more weight on the tailwheel, heavier, etc.
The S folds up just as small. The BFH's have the small footprint for small deck landings. A 60S is almost at the back of the flight deck on a CG/DD. Our tails often hang over the edge, but we have the short footprint.
Why would the Marines want the B/F/H short footprint? Less stable on ground, more weight on the tailwheel, heavier, etc.
The S folds up just as small. The BFH's have the small footprint for small deck landings. A 60S is almost at the back of the flight deck on a CG/DD. Our tails often hang over the edge, but we have the short footprint.
If we did go to the 60, I don't think the short tailwheel would be the way to go. Remember that we usually go to big decks--LHD/LHA with some LPD/LSD thrown in. Saving a couple feet isn't so important there.
Commonality is a big plus if you're talking resupply in an expeditionary environment. The Y/Zs are someting like 85% interchangable on parts. That would be pretty nice when managing parts.
I say cancel them both and buy militarized B609s!:icon_smil
Commonality is a big plus if you're talking resupply in an expeditionary environment. The Y/Zs are someting like 85% interchangable on parts. That would be pretty nice when managing parts.
I say cancel them both and buy militarized B609s!:icon_smil
An update on the H-1 program- Marine Corps to start looking at possible alternatives to the AH-1Z and UH-1Y:
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Navy to review H-1, alternatives
By Jim McBride
jim.mcbride@amarillo.com
A top Pentagon official has decided to continue Bell Helicopter Textron's troubled H-1 Upgrades program through October, but he ordered the Navy to conduct a systematic program review that includes other alternatives.
The H-1 program's focus is to deliver light utility and attack helicopters for the Marine Corps. The H-1 program will replace the current fleet of AH-1W and UH-1N aircraft with 180 AH-1Zs and 100 UH-1Ys.
Kenneth Krieg, undersecretary of the Navy for acquisition, technology and logistics, issued a formal acquisition decision memorandum June 22. The full memorandum is considered classified, but the Pentagon on Monday released a short "information paper" on the H-1 program.
"This ADM requires the Navy to: continue with the program, but to return with an in-process review in October 2006; and develop a way forward to resolve various program issues, to include potential alternatives to the established program of record," the information paper.
U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry said Monday he doesn't anticipate that the Pentagon will cancel the program but said top military procurement officials want it fixed.
"I don't think they are going to run out and choose another helicopter tomorrow, but I think they want Bell to know that we're going to keep a close eye on this," he said. "They have said every time they have looked at it that the H-1 is the right program. In a way, I think they are probably using this language as a threat to say "we really mean it, get this thing straightened out.' "
In April, Navy Contracting Officer Steven Bizier issued a "letter of concern" that questioned Bell's ability to meet contract specifications and deliver the program on schedule. Two independent program reviews concluded the program has "multiple areas of concern" that must be addressed.
"In order for Bell to execute their contractual responsibilities, fundamental changes in (Bell's) management practices and production tools/processes are required that will result in continuous and measurable improvements in on-time delivery of quality products," the memo said.
Delores M. Etter, assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, issued a memo the same day that cited concerns about Bell's fourth major restructuring of the H-1 program.
"Of major concern is the capability of BHTI to deliver H-1 aircraft in accordance with H-1 contract requirements, while maintaining consistent performance on other Navy programs such as the V-22," Etter wrote.
The same day the Navy issued its memo, the House Armed Services Committee named the H-1 upgrades program as one of 36 costly military programs. The H-1 program was among 25 major weapons programs whose cost growth was named "critical."
A program's cost growth is deemed "critical" if the weapons system exceeds 25 percent of current program baseline estimate or 50 percent of its original estimate.
A recent Senate Armed Services Committee report cited H-1 problems associated with "deficient cost controls and accounting procedures" in Bell's program management.
Navy and Bell officials overseeing the H-1 Program could not be reached for comment Monday.
Bell spokesman Mike Cox said earlier this month that Bell was working to tackle issues raised by the Navy and the Congress.
"We have assigned a significant amount of resources, people and otherwise, to the program. The program is progressing," he said. "We've got four aircraft in production right now. We have four aircraft that were delivered on time to begin the operational evaluation, and we are doing anything and everything we can do to make that program work."
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Navy to review H-1, alternatives
By Jim McBride
jim.mcbride@amarillo.com
A top Pentagon official has decided to continue Bell Helicopter Textron's troubled H-1 Upgrades program through October, but he ordered the Navy to conduct a systematic program review that includes other alternatives.
The H-1 program's focus is to deliver light utility and attack helicopters for the Marine Corps. The H-1 program will replace the current fleet of AH-1W and UH-1N aircraft with 180 AH-1Zs and 100 UH-1Ys.
Kenneth Krieg, undersecretary of the Navy for acquisition, technology and logistics, issued a formal acquisition decision memorandum June 22. The full memorandum is considered classified, but the Pentagon on Monday released a short "information paper" on the H-1 program.
"This ADM requires the Navy to: continue with the program, but to return with an in-process review in October 2006; and develop a way forward to resolve various program issues, to include potential alternatives to the established program of record," the information paper.
U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry said Monday he doesn't anticipate that the Pentagon will cancel the program but said top military procurement officials want it fixed.
"I don't think they are going to run out and choose another helicopter tomorrow, but I think they want Bell to know that we're going to keep a close eye on this," he said. "They have said every time they have looked at it that the H-1 is the right program. In a way, I think they are probably using this language as a threat to say "we really mean it, get this thing straightened out.' "
In April, Navy Contracting Officer Steven Bizier issued a "letter of concern" that questioned Bell's ability to meet contract specifications and deliver the program on schedule. Two independent program reviews concluded the program has "multiple areas of concern" that must be addressed.
"In order for Bell to execute their contractual responsibilities, fundamental changes in (Bell's) management practices and production tools/processes are required that will result in continuous and measurable improvements in on-time delivery of quality products," the memo said.
Delores M. Etter, assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, issued a memo the same day that cited concerns about Bell's fourth major restructuring of the H-1 program.
"Of major concern is the capability of BHTI to deliver H-1 aircraft in accordance with H-1 contract requirements, while maintaining consistent performance on other Navy programs such as the V-22," Etter wrote.
The same day the Navy issued its memo, the House Armed Services Committee named the H-1 upgrades program as one of 36 costly military programs. The H-1 program was among 25 major weapons programs whose cost growth was named "critical."
A program's cost growth is deemed "critical" if the weapons system exceeds 25 percent of current program baseline estimate or 50 percent of its original estimate.
A recent Senate Armed Services Committee report cited H-1 problems associated with "deficient cost controls and accounting procedures" in Bell's program management.
Navy and Bell officials overseeing the H-1 Program could not be reached for comment Monday.
Bell spokesman Mike Cox said earlier this month that Bell was working to tackle issues raised by the Navy and the Congress.
"We have assigned a significant amount of resources, people and otherwise, to the program. The program is progressing," he said. "We've got four aircraft in production right now. We have four aircraft that were delivered on time to begin the operational evaluation, and we are doing anything and everything we can do to make that program work."
Thunderboom
Cat Herder at MATSG21
For those interested, there is a similar thread that covers a two year period from initial testing to the present problems. Thread link is below. Also included are pictures from different phases of the testing. Heard a rumor (unconfirmed) the current hang up deals with a problem with the helmet.
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5671946761/m/292108502/p/1
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5671946761/m/292108502/p/1
goosegagnon2
Member
Get some. :icon_smil
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
The main reasons for keeping the two existing platforms is that they've proven themselves in combat, crews have already deployed and trained in them, and (as stated by others), theres good parts commonality for crew chiefs and maintenance Marines. The huey pilot that I did talk to at pendleton said that he loved his aircraft and wouldn't trade it for anything.
Is anyone listening? If you pay an arm and a leg up front is parts commanlity that worth it? I would argue that the answer is a big fat no. Does anyone realize that this program is in serious danger of being cancelled entirely? How much is parts commonality when the program is dead? The Marines could probaly ill afford another V-22 like solution that takes 15 years and costs billions. All that for the same aircraft, just updated versions. At least the V-22 was a leap forward, not a staggering step. The gravy train that resulted from post 9/11 spending is coming to an end and things are going to start being axed, something that has had repeated cost overruns and has not delivered yet is a prime target for chopping (Comanche anyone?).
What the Marines want/need and what the Marines get may not be the same thing.......
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
I agree man... its a program we don't want to be dead... and it appears that steps are being taken to create a situation in which the contract will hold. I can only hope that this will continue to be the case. The contract going dead because of budget issues IS possible.... but by no means a certainty. You definitely made a good point though - the Comanche is a perfect example. However these upgrades aren't a huge leap like that.. they're just pumping out an improved version of what already exists... they ARE the USMC's best effort towards the cheapest and most reliable solution. You gotta hand it to them they're working their asses off.
flyerstud4
Registered User
Any news on an old thread. Is there a RAG for the AH-1Z/UH-1Y yet? Anytime soon?
what, no haiku?
Any quick thoughts on why the Marines haven't been interested in the AH-64D...the best attack helicopter in world? (I'm sure this will be/has been debated). The Marines considered the Alpha model long ago, but went the way of the Cobra instead.
Despite the potential argument for an improved FLIR/PNVS, the avionics suite is pretty darn advanced in the Longbow, not to mention quite a few stories exist from from guys who claim they never would have walked away from those "rough landings" if they were driving the Cobra.
Despite the potential argument for an improved FLIR/PNVS, the avionics suite is pretty darn advanced in the Longbow, not to mention quite a few stories exist from from guys who claim they never would have walked away from those "rough landings" if they were driving the Cobra.
A couple reasons pop into mind. Skid guys give me some help:
Money
Maintainability
Compatibility with UH-1Y
Navalization
Suitability for escort of assaults
Suitability for employment under Marine Corps doctrine, e.g. running fire vice hover holds, etc.
Size and complexity?