Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Boeing Company Message Board

  • vietnam_vet4ever vietnam_vet4ever Mar 19, 2007 7:52 AM Flag

    CSAR-X.......NEWS!!! (part 1)

    With all the talk about this going on, I will have make some statements of my own.
    First of all I want the best aircraft for our troops. And currently I don�t see the CH-47 as being that aircraft. First of all you have AirForce Chief of Staff General T.Michael �Buzz� Moseley publicly stating in AV/Week of 2/5/07 that he isn�t enthusiastic about his service�s $15 billion decision to buy a variant of the CH-47 for CSAR. �Buzz�doesn�t want his special operations guys having to fly the Chinook design
    with his service's selection of this aircraft for the CSAR competition. Now the question is who is Buzz? Well, Buzz is the AirForce Chief of Staff. He is the highest ranking member of the AirForce(none higher, top of the heap, numero uno, capisce?) Airforce officials say that the CH-47 is an older-generation aircraft than its combat-search-rescue competitors.

    I would have to agree with the AirForce Chief of Staff on this one. The aircraft was designed in 1962. Here we are in 2007 ordering an aircraft that the AirForce will use 30 to 40 years into the future. We could potentially be flying an Aircraft that was designed 100 years ago!!!!!!. As a matter of fact this aircraft was routinely shot down in operation Anaconda in Afghanistan as was noted in another issue of AV/Week. What we need is a fast agile helicopter that can get in, do it�s job and then get out fast(ideally, the V-22 would be perfect for this mission, but the thought of losing one of these very very expensive A/C would be a public relations nightmare with Congress). The CH-47 is an aircraft I would not want my sons or daughters flying in any of the CSAR mission environments. Besides isn't the HH-47 a heavy lift helicopter? I thought this was an intermediate class competition? There are some heavy lift Helicopters that Sikorsky has that can fly faster, farther, and higher than any of the competiting entries.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • same thing goes for the older c5a'aircraft when you could have newer more dependable more efficeint more safer!!!!!planes with the C-17s In the time of peace, studies and generals said the bare minimum required was 222.And now were using them far more faster then anyone could imagine.

    • Don't you think the Delta Nightsatarkers 160th had alot of imput one this?
      There was a fly off in Nellis. the other birds couldn.t even get off the ground. That's what you want aviable to help your boys. Due to rotor brake G-47 flow circles around the compition while they were unable to even spool engines and turn rotors

      • 1 Reply to robdor07
      • Then why did AirForce Chief of Staff Michael(Buzz) Moseley publicly state and I'll say it again, PUBLICLY STATE.....from Av/Week 2/05/2007 "Buzz....doesn't want his special operations guys having to fly the Chinook design" says a senior Air Force official.

        I wish I could ask the special ops guys....but I'm sure Buzz is speaking for them. Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

        Like I said before, this competition will end up in federal court and much to the detriment of our service people. I have no vested interest in this competition job-wise but only the best interests of our service people. But I can't say that from some of the selfish posts I see on this message board in particular, ibcnu2days. What is he, a paid cheerleader for Boeing? Looking at his picture, he is kind of odd looking! I betcha he's in his own little world and he probably thinks he's very handsome.

    • Dr Sir,
      Just ask the Delta Nightstalkers and 101st and 82nd airbourne what they would want ride into combat

    • DEAR SIR,
      It, is very apparent your clue less on Rotorcraft and thier futuer ops.
      Best to keep silent then appear stupid.
      The HH-47 will be the greatest CSAR with no other aircraft comparable in speed range high alttitude performance.
      I'm gettin reading to start building them with great pride and American dollars that will stay American dollars.
      Boeing builds the best, get ready for another loss EADS ON the tankers

    • I agree with parts 1&2 Vietnam_Vet. I will say that during a recompetition the US101 will win!!!!

    • the same old wornout argument of "old airframe" has no basis in this selection! The body will be new generation, the rotors are upgraded to latest tech and the flight controls and cockpit electric is going to be the best available. Case in point, the f-16, f-15 and the commercial 737 family of aircraft have evolved over the years with upgrades and new tech.

      • 1 Reply to jjovaz
      • I don't think you comprehended what vietnam_vet quoted in is article. He said the AirForce chief of staff said it was old! And vietnam_vet agreed with him. Well I would venture to guess that if subordinates to Mr Moseley told him he was full of S@#& about this being an old airframe do you think they would last in their current jobs.

    • Looking at the competition that Boeing has I would say that the US101 has the best chance of winning. It was selected to provide transportation for the President beginning in 2009 and many of the modifications made are applicable to the CSAR variant. Looking at Sikorsky's S-92, I notice that this aircraft was entirely company funded without government funding. This could be very palatable to lawmakers if and when Congress decides to take a look at the goings-on with this contract award. Also I've heard that Sikorsky is on the verge of break-thrus using X-Wing technology. This would enable current helicopters to fly at 245knots a full 90 knots faster then current helicopters.
      Now we all know that the AirForce loves top of the line aircraft, so the question arises, would the AirForce be happy with the HH-47............I would say not!

      I got a chuckle last week when Boeing indicated that they didn�t want to reopen the competition for CSAR. They gave the reasons why their A/C should still be awarded the contract. Along with all the positives they mentioned as expected, they did say that their proposal was 3 billion more expensive then their closest competitor (I thought it would be closer than that but what is a few billion here and there right?)Now with the GAO saying that inconsistent life cycle analysis were used by Boeing in their proposal, I wonder what the difference would be if they used a consistent life cycle analysis. Would it be 4 billion, 5 billion, 6 billion . Just peanuts right? Try to convince the GAO or potentially Congress if this contract does not go thru the re-bid process. If the AirForce refuses to re-bid as the GAO has requested a few times, then most likely Lockheed and Sikorsky will file lawsuits in federal court which is entirely within their right from some of the articles I have read on this competition. Then when that happens, our friends in Congress will get involved and then they will have a lot of questions for the AirForce. We don�t need this. Let�s give our servicemen and women the best A/C we can give them and put aside some of the selfishness I see on this board

 
BA
133.47-0.06(-0.04%)Jul 22 4:02 PMEDT