CSAR-X Program Facing More Delays

>>LINK<<

This article first appeared at Aviation Week's Ares Weblog.

Under a Defense Department Inspector General (IG) investigation and more intense source selection scrutiny, the Air Force's $15 billion combat, search and rescue replacement helicopter (CSAR-X) program is further delaying its planned contract award.

The IG announced its investigation about a month ago into the way the Air Force changed a key performance parameter (KPP) change for deployability (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 25).

Late last month the Air Force notified bidders Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky that the sixth amendment to the request for proposals (RFP) -- in essence, a new RFP -- will be released some time in the spring, with an award to follow in October. The service explained the delay by saying it needed more time to evaluate the very detailed proposals. A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting on the program is likely to take place a month or so before the downselect.

Last fall Air Force officials expressed the hope that the award would be made by the summer. The CSAR-X work already has been delayed more than a year -- and it has been on the Air Force drawing board since the previous decade.

Initially, Boeing won the contract with its HH-47 Chinook variant. But Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky protested the award twice, with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustaining both on the basis of how the Air Force calculated certain lifecycle costs for the proposed aircraft.

Now added in the mix is the IG investigation into the KPP change. As first reported by Aerospace DAILY, the Air Force changed a crucial bit of wording in the requirement, saying that a disassembled CSAR-X helicopter had to be only "flight" ready -- instead of "mission" ready -- within three hours. The Air Force said it vetted the change properly, but its own documents call that assertion into question.

Air Force officials told Congress that Lockheed Martin had asked for the change, but the service's own documents show the service had made the change prior to when it said Lockheed suggested a wording clarification. Lockheed said it never asked for any such change (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 8).

Boeing would have likely benefited most from such a wording change, analysts said. Boeing said it never requested the KPP change, but the company acknowledged a briefing with the Air Force in April 2005 -- shortly before the service made the change -- in which deployability times apparently were discussed.

Besides the IG investigation, another wrinkle in the competition is the recent $35 billion tanker award to the team of Northrop Grumman and EADS, which has been protested by Boeing.

Lawmakers have started to use the tanker deal as an example of how the Pentagon needs to avoid giving too many major contracts to teams with foreign partners. Lockheed Martin's partner on CSAR-X for its HH-71 candidate is AgustaWestland.

But Lockheed also could benefit from the tanker competition. The HH-71 proposal suffered because of past performance issues the Air Force cited with Lockheed's presidential helicopter, which is based on the same European aircraft.

However, the tanker program may have established a precedent by rating entries based on multiple past performance programs instead of being so heavily weighted mostly on one.

If there is any intelligence in the decision making process , they'll select the Lockheed HH-71, which is a variant of the Augusta MK3 being flown by the RAF, US101 Presidential aircraft being flown by the USMC, and the EH-101 flying with militaries around the globe. The aircraft has superior, advanced technology and flies with three engines, instead of two, being offered by Boeing HH-47 and Sikorsky H-92.

Rescue Chopper Requirements Sacrificed for Rivalries

quote:

Now, after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has twice upheld protests by competitors Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky (Aerospace DAILY, Aug. 31, 2007), the CSAR-X replacement is running more than a year behind schedule. But ironically, one of the reasons why the program wound up in such a tangled mess is because some key acquisition decision-makers or shapers wanted certain aircraft because they would be ready sooner.

Officials with the competing companies say the new review is focusing more on operational performance than before, which makes these questions even more pertinent. And the acquisition is now the subject of congressional, Senate and Defense Department Inspector General reviews.

Editor’s Note: This is the first in an exclusive series of articles, based on dozens of interviews, reviews of key documents and analysis of military databases, exploring how the U.S. Air Force came to choose Boeing’s HH-47 for its Combat Search and Rescue helicopter replacement (CSAR-X), and the ramifications of that choice for the service, the industry competitors and the warfighter.

quote:

EH-101

quote:

Originally posted by Torch8306:
and flies with three engines, instead of two,.

Unfortunately it is difficult to translate three engines as being the making of a better helicopter. The engine does not produce thrust, it rotates a rotor disk by generating torque that goes through a fancy gear box. Unless it has a design like the CH-47 or HH-43 a tail rotor is needed to counter the torque. The third engine may or may not add gross weight (I suppose a third engine may allow use of smaller engines less powerful engines that would weigh the same as two larger more powerful engines). Both Sikorsky and Lockheed can upgrade and modify design for current bid, so it is possible EH-101 may not retain the superiority edge by the time the replacement is chosen.

The weakness of the H-3 was the engines were capable of generating more torque and turning a better performing rotor disk than the gear box and tail rotor was capable of handling. The airframe modification required was so extensive it was not cost effective at all to do so not to mention the assembly line retooling costs needed to do it.

Unlike what Sikorsky is offering, the US101 is leading technology with composite framing, advanced rotor technology, and advanced engines. They are more fuel efficient, weigh less, and can be interchanged with three different manufacturers. GE and Rolls Royce being the preference, with the latter being the engine used on the AH-64 Apache. This aircraft has over 24,000 hours of performance in the European version of the EH-101, being flown in several NATO countries.
The purpose of the three vs two was for, not only power, but defensive measures, providing an additional source, in case of enemy fire or malfunction taking out one of the three.
The AW-101 would be the perfect fit search and rescue, and the armament makes it a hell of a gunship to protect itself.

quote:

Your statement assumes the aircraft can sustain flight on two of three engines at the operational weights, altitudes and temps the USAF calls for.

That's from testing results by A/W.
There's no stipulation the Air Force, or in the case of the Marine VH-71 Presidential, that multiple source engines are required for storage spares. It only shows the ability to interchange with multiple sources, when in fact, most US military jet engines are offered in a PW or GE.