NAVAIR announces TH-57D

[ChuckMK23]

and the lack of a decent digital map is such a negative point it can be hard to look past it.

OMG - NO digital/moving map/database on the 60S - are you kidding? What moron decided to leave THAT out?

I did not realize 60S folks - the best Navy in the world - would be lowered yto the level of breaking out a sectional or TPC to do a x-country. WTFO?

 

[bert]

There is the "strap-on" kneeboard digital map, but I am not a fan, and I don't know where it is in terms of release to the fleet.

 

[ChuckMK23]

How about just velcro this to the glare shield and call it done?

 

[ChuckMK23]

There is the "strap-on" kneeboard digital map, but I am not a fan, and I don't know where it is in terms of release to the fleet.

Oh and your scaring me with that "strap on" language.... Oh it's ok I remember you're not a Marine

 

[Gatordev]

@Chuck:

I see what you're saying and hope you're right. Didn't think/know about the difference between Milspec and FAR-kosher.

There is the "strap-on" kneeboard digital map, but I am not a fan, and I don't know where it is in terms of release to the fleet.

I've mentioned it before somewhere here on the site, but we had two of those units we were "testing" for NavAir. Neat gadget when compared to a monochrome MPD, but still very cumbersome.

I am not much of a SAC fan myself, but I don't think you can blame them for the R's weight issues. And Lockheed only stuck on what they were paid to stick on.

So short answer is requirements creep, longer answer is the whole Helo Master Plan vision-thingy and the list of things we (and our SWO brethren) wanted the R to be able to do. So if you ask why it is so heavy, the answer is "because we asked for it to be."

I'm just not that smart on the Romeo (I gave up caring during my sea tour when I knew I probably wouldn't be flying it), so I truly am asking a serious question. What crept into the airframe that "we asked for?" I understand the dipper is there, but let's remove that for the moment. You have a shooter package...check, but the Bravo had that, you have a launcher, check, but the Bravo had that, you have the computers which should, theoretically, be lighter and smaller, you have some kind of Link, but the Bravo had that. You have ESM, but the Bravo had that. You have radar, which is obviously more capable, but still shouldn't weigh that much more w/ the new gen. of tech.

So what was it? Obviously there has to be more in there than I'm aware of.

 

[bert]

There isn't a simple answer (outside of going box by box). But remember it is not just the individual boxes, but they are also wired together with other boxes to let them all talk to each other.

I don't know enough about the B to speak exactly to the overall improvement in capability, but from my outsider perspective I suspect it is substantial. Will that do you any good if you go OEI off the back of the boat? Not a bit, but there you have it.

 

[Gatordev]

Touche.

An AW I cruised w/ on my first det transferred up to Pax and I ran into him later on. He was telling me about some of the mission system details and it was pretty impressive. I've got another bud who's over at -41 now and his offhand comment to me in an email wasn't too complimentary of the Romeo's reliability. It wasn't much more than that, but it's an interesting comment.

 

[hscs]

If you ever play with Link-16 you will appreciate the cockpit a little more. It takes that type of interaction to appreciate its good points.

While by far not the best cockpit out there, it is such a step up from some of our legacy airframes that you have to like it for that, if not for a whole lot else. A lot of the functionality just isn't that useful to a Sierra guy, and the lack of a decent digital map is such a negative point it can be hard to look past it.

Link 16 aside -- the cockpit was made for both airframes, and needs to be so. There are decisions that were made that the 60S guys did not pay attention to, did not scream loud enough against, or just weren't told about -- e.g. the MD locked in true north, rather than having a choice between mag and true. Additionally, the people who wrote the requirements left out some serious deficiencies that are now needing to be corrected for the -60S block 3s like an MGRS capability. Unfortunately, the MPS system took us a leap backwards -- who knows, maybe JMPS will save us...

 

[bert]

There are decisions that were made that the 60S guys did not pay attention to, did not scream loud enough against, or just weren't told about

I don't know how much you ever play in the acquisition process, but understand that you are talking about a (relatively speaking) very small number of actual folks who are fighting the cost-schedule-requirements war. The ability to orientate (thrown in for our USMC friends) the map to any heading represents an tremendous increase in processor, memory, and bandwith on the bus requirements - especially considering they were designing from early to mid 90's computer technology. That represents a lot of money that the program didn't have and wasn't going to get. Even the guys who are pointy on one end don't have a bottom-less budget anymore. Overall - since I won't even try to guess how many times requirements changed enroute for either the R or the S - I am more inclined to pity the poor suckers attempting to translate those requirements into capabilities than to get bent at them.

And while I share your disdain for MPS, remember it was no more written for us bubbas than SHARPs was. Right or wrong, fair or not, it is a jet world - we just live in it.

 

[hscs]

MPS was developed solely for the 60S/R -- we didn't ask right.

and the 60F/H display can change it's display. Frankly, many of the things that the commodore 64 TDPs can do in the F/H -- can't be done in the S/R -- true/mag, MGRS, Tacan track, hold more than 150 waypoint/route points....

And SHARPs was written by an HS-6 JO on cruise -- then sold it to the Navy via the BENESIG program.

 

[bert]

MPS for S/R was not original code - that costs more (though I agree it might have been worth it). (And please don't think I am defending it: the latest version automatically disables mode 3 in the aircraft when you make a mode S entry on preflight, one of umpteen reasons it is hard to be a fan).

Also, I'm not arguing that all those functions could not have been in the common cockpit, I am just saying the reason they weren't is the cost of integration. That too may well have been worth the price, but apparently we thought we couldn't afford it - and a moving map fell under the same category.

As to SHARPs, I only ever learned enough to produce a NAVFLIR, my intellectual curiosity failed me past that. Whatever it was when the HS guy created it, once the pointy nose guys were through it needed some tweaking to work for us.

 

[bert]

And nothing from nothing, but since we have disagreed on motivations (if not on systems) before, I thought I might throw in some free advice that you are free to ignore:

Whether intentional or not, you come off as being pretty quick on the trigger to blame "old guard" 46 guys for some if not all of the S's problem. Whatever the depth of the validity of that argument, I just thought I would point out that not a lot of us can stand extremely close scrutiny, so maybe a little bit of the benefit of the doubt for their motivations (let alone their competence) could go a long way for our own karma.

Or to put it more succintly, I guess I am more prone to cut a little slack - even for people whose community I deliberately left - because I sure hope other folks would do the same for me.

Sorry for the threadjack, -57D guys fire at will....

 

[hscs]

I wasn't knocking 46 folks -- most of the folks in the FIT/NHTT are HSL, anyways I am knocking people who do not have enough competence to improve on systems already in place and take a look at what systems and capabilities will be required down the road. At this point, in my current job, I would much rather have an H than a brand new shiny block 3 60S with the B kit installed. That is how far we have gone backwards...

 

[HH-60H]

I would much rather have an H than a brand new shiny block 3 60S ...

You are a very wise man :icon_tong

 

[lowflier03]

At this point, in my current job, I would much rather have an H than a brand new shiny block 3 60S with the B kit installed. That is how far we have gone backwards...

Amen to that. I have been saying the same thing numerous times on these forums and always get chewed out. Unfortunately its all a result of money and politics.