Muradk
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,403
- Reaction score
- 2
I would love to have that explained.
anytime will email you. And have a little surprise attached with the email for you from mk jr.
Does Pakistan have CH47 and AH64?
- Thread starter Zero Bravo
- Start date
anytime will email you. And have a little surprise attached with the email for you from mk jr.
Al Shaheen
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
I assume you are on about Hellfire.
The Cobra's can't carry them. So I assume again that they are being tagged to a fixed-wing option, yes?
Dare I speculate a Pakistani UCAV perhaps??
Well, If it is a secret then it will stay that way. There is room to speculate for others but a promise is a promise. Looking forward to Senior's and "junior's" message. If there is still something I admire or wished then they both did it.
araz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9,291
- Reaction score
- 81
araz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 9,291
- Reaction score
- 81
You guys from TT are like my faimly so if munir gets it you will to. Doc I have gathered some stuff for you. I asure you 100% after reading it you wount need any Morphine, Once agin I dont want to end up in a loonybin
Sir Muradk
As always I eagerly await aresponse from you. You already have my email
regards
Araz
Blackpearl
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 403
- Reaction score
- 0
idont think we have any such plateform which can fire Hellfire.May be F-16 is configured to fire it...
batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
An Insider's View of CSAR-X
I got an interesting email yesterday from a combat veteran CSAR pilot. He makes some good points on the whole debate over the current CSAR-X requirements and protest, and I'd like to share them with DT readers with his permission:
(From retired Lt. Col. Charles D. Brown, former CSAR HH-53 pilot and veteran of the Vietnam evacuation and Mayaguez rescue)
The major issue in the contract comes from in the change from 'mission' ready to 'flight' ready. As a retired Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) pilot I can tell you that the seemingly insignificant difference between 'flight ready' and 'mission ready' is anything but insignificant. So, a bit of explanation. Boeing's Chinook can be 'flight' ready in the 3 hours it takes to put the helicopter back together after being off loaded from a C-17. But, 'flight ready' simply means that it can be flown on a formal maintenance check flight to verify that all the flight controls work exactly as necessary. To get the heavy-lift, Chinook into a C-17, you have to disconnect flight controls and remove major flight components. When you put it back together, you have to have a specially qualified flight crew take the aircraft up on a functional check flight before the aircraft can be used for a mission.
This maintenance check flight is supposed to happen in daylight and in good visual flight weather. Off load the Chinook at night or in bad weather, or have something go amiss during reassembly, and you might wait a day or two to have a 'mission ready' aircraft.
The Chinook is a good cargo helicopter. We need its heavy lift capability in our helicopter fleet. A CSAR helicopter must carry survivors, a basic crew and weapons but heavy lift and large size is not a requirement for CSAR. Its all about not being shot down. CSAR is about flying low over hostile enemy territory. You are there to 'sneak in, grab survivors fast, and get the hell out' before the enemy knows you have been there. Thats will be more difficult to achieve with a larger, noisier helicopter. Then theres the challenge of finding a landing zone big enough to accommodate a helicopter the size of the Chinook, landing being preferable to using a hoist, especially if there are multiple people to pick up.
In short, the difference between flight ready and mission ready is a major issue. Anyone who has flown helicopters knows that they are maintenance intensive. The helicopter that meets mission requirements with the fewest maintenance and check flight requirements is a winner. Speed counts in getting CSAR on scene. Less time for the enemy to search for survivors and prepare anti aircraft fire for the CSAR they know is coming. It's a big deal to the squadron and the pilots trying to fly the mission, and a really big deal to the downed, possibly injured warfighter caught behind enemy lines.
Survivors are in a life-or-death situation where every minute counts, and any delays that might be required to get a Chinook 'mission ready' from 'flight ready' are unacceptable. If the military requirements are for a helicopter that can be airlifted by cargo aircraft to a theater and be rapidly mission ready, I'm happy the Air Force didn't opt to overlook this 'technicality' and I suspect families, like mine, with loved ones in Iraq are too.
Full Disclosure on CSAR-X
Our thanks goes out to an alert DT reader who brought to our attention a mitigating fact in the ongoing (fueled mostly by the protesting parties) debate over the CSAR-X program.
On August 21, DefenseTech posted a letter forwarded to us written by a former top general in the Air Force search and rescue community who had some pretty harsh words for the source selection officials and the ultimate decision to award Boeing with the CSAR-X contract.
He signed the letter with his name and former rank only. But what he left out is more revealing than what he put in his letter.
It turns out Maj. Gen. Richard Comer (ret.) is the executive vice president of Aerospace Integration Corporation based in Mary Esther, Fl. AIC announced with great glee in February of last year its selection as a partner with Sikorsky to do systems integration work for the companys HH-92 CSAR-X bid. Both Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are protesting Boeings win.
In Comers letter, he outlines his credentials in the opening paragraph, but declines to mention hes employed by a Sikorsky subcontractor. He impugns the motives of the source selection officials in the Air Force, saying they were probably the victims of group think though he caveated his remarks by saying the officers were conscientious and honest in their decision.
Our reader knows Comer and was stung by his crass assertion without ever revealing that he has a financial interest in Boeings demise, selling his soul for 30 pieces of Sikorsky silver.
And he raises a very valid point. The source selectors in the DoD are precluded by law from discussing any of their motivations beyond the stated specifications and how the selected aircraft met them. But that hasnt stopped the protesters from pumping out info to folks like us here at DefenseTech undercutting Boeings win and fueling the fire of protest. The government folks can say nothing while the fur is flying.
Sober people can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Boeing win. Were agnostic on the issue other than to say that it seems the Air Force picked a heavy lift helicopter for a medium lift job. Hearing the Boeing folks talk about the superior range, speed and payload of the HH-47 was kind of like hearing Boeing say the C-17 is better than the Lockheed Martin C-130 of course, theyre different aircraft in separate classes.
I got an interesting email yesterday from a combat veteran CSAR pilot. He makes some good points on the whole debate over the current CSAR-X requirements and protest, and I'd like to share them with DT readers with his permission:
(From retired Lt. Col. Charles D. Brown, former CSAR HH-53 pilot and veteran of the Vietnam evacuation and Mayaguez rescue)
The major issue in the contract comes from in the change from 'mission' ready to 'flight' ready. As a retired Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) pilot I can tell you that the seemingly insignificant difference between 'flight ready' and 'mission ready' is anything but insignificant. So, a bit of explanation. Boeing's Chinook can be 'flight' ready in the 3 hours it takes to put the helicopter back together after being off loaded from a C-17. But, 'flight ready' simply means that it can be flown on a formal maintenance check flight to verify that all the flight controls work exactly as necessary. To get the heavy-lift, Chinook into a C-17, you have to disconnect flight controls and remove major flight components. When you put it back together, you have to have a specially qualified flight crew take the aircraft up on a functional check flight before the aircraft can be used for a mission.
This maintenance check flight is supposed to happen in daylight and in good visual flight weather. Off load the Chinook at night or in bad weather, or have something go amiss during reassembly, and you might wait a day or two to have a 'mission ready' aircraft.
The Chinook is a good cargo helicopter. We need its heavy lift capability in our helicopter fleet. A CSAR helicopter must carry survivors, a basic crew and weapons but heavy lift and large size is not a requirement for CSAR. Its all about not being shot down. CSAR is about flying low over hostile enemy territory. You are there to 'sneak in, grab survivors fast, and get the hell out' before the enemy knows you have been there. Thats will be more difficult to achieve with a larger, noisier helicopter. Then theres the challenge of finding a landing zone big enough to accommodate a helicopter the size of the Chinook, landing being preferable to using a hoist, especially if there are multiple people to pick up.
In short, the difference between flight ready and mission ready is a major issue. Anyone who has flown helicopters knows that they are maintenance intensive. The helicopter that meets mission requirements with the fewest maintenance and check flight requirements is a winner. Speed counts in getting CSAR on scene. Less time for the enemy to search for survivors and prepare anti aircraft fire for the CSAR they know is coming. It's a big deal to the squadron and the pilots trying to fly the mission, and a really big deal to the downed, possibly injured warfighter caught behind enemy lines.
Survivors are in a life-or-death situation where every minute counts, and any delays that might be required to get a Chinook 'mission ready' from 'flight ready' are unacceptable. If the military requirements are for a helicopter that can be airlifted by cargo aircraft to a theater and be rapidly mission ready, I'm happy the Air Force didn't opt to overlook this 'technicality' and I suspect families, like mine, with loved ones in Iraq are too.
Full Disclosure on CSAR-X
Our thanks goes out to an alert DT reader who brought to our attention a mitigating fact in the ongoing (fueled mostly by the protesting parties) debate over the CSAR-X program.
On August 21, DefenseTech posted a letter forwarded to us written by a former top general in the Air Force search and rescue community who had some pretty harsh words for the source selection officials and the ultimate decision to award Boeing with the CSAR-X contract.
He signed the letter with his name and former rank only. But what he left out is more revealing than what he put in his letter.
It turns out Maj. Gen. Richard Comer (ret.) is the executive vice president of Aerospace Integration Corporation based in Mary Esther, Fl. AIC announced with great glee in February of last year its selection as a partner with Sikorsky to do systems integration work for the companys HH-92 CSAR-X bid. Both Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are protesting Boeings win.
In Comers letter, he outlines his credentials in the opening paragraph, but declines to mention hes employed by a Sikorsky subcontractor. He impugns the motives of the source selection officials in the Air Force, saying they were probably the victims of group think though he caveated his remarks by saying the officers were conscientious and honest in their decision.
Our reader knows Comer and was stung by his crass assertion without ever revealing that he has a financial interest in Boeings demise, selling his soul for 30 pieces of Sikorsky silver.
And he raises a very valid point. The source selectors in the DoD are precluded by law from discussing any of their motivations beyond the stated specifications and how the selected aircraft met them. But that hasnt stopped the protesters from pumping out info to folks like us here at DefenseTech undercutting Boeings win and fueling the fire of protest. The government folks can say nothing while the fur is flying.
Sober people can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Boeing win. Were agnostic on the issue other than to say that it seems the Air Force picked a heavy lift helicopter for a medium lift job. Hearing the Boeing folks talk about the superior range, speed and payload of the HH-47 was kind of like hearing Boeing say the C-17 is better than the Lockheed Martin C-130 of course, theyre different aircraft in separate classes.
Similar threads
