Per WSJournal - Young Soldiers, Old Helicopters

Status
Not open for further replies.

emc

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
371
Location
Central Indiana
WSJournal - March 18, 2003

*****************************

U.S. Military Labors to Keep
Aging Helicopters Airworthy

By ANNE MARIE SQUEO , J. LYNN LUNSFORD and NICHOLAS KULISH
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


On a recent episode of the television show "The West Wing," the Pentagon's top military commander ordered two Comanche reconnaissance helicopters dispatched to rescue three Marines taken hostage.

When he heard about the fictional deployment, Maj. Gen. John Caldwell, head of the Army's acquisition programs, burst out laughing. "Those would be the only two we have," he said.

For more than a decade, ambitious plans to replace the U.S. military's aging helicopter fleet have been sidelined by funding constraints and developmental problems. The imposing-looking Comanche, which is supposed to have the ability to fly sideways and backward at more than 85 miles an hour, is the fruit of a $48 billion program that began in 1983 but isn't expected to become part of the U.S. arsenal until 2009 at the earliest. And the V-22 Osprey, a hybrid aircraft that takes off and lands like a helicopter but cruises like an airplane at more than twice the speed of a conventional helicopter, has been grounded for much of the past two years after a string of fatal crashes. The V-22 was recently grounded again because of hydraulic-system problems, and top Pentagon officials say they are prepared to finally end the $46 billion program if it doesn't get on track soon.

So as they assemble for a potential conflict with Iraq, U.S. forces are relying on helicopters that in some cases are older than the troops they will carry. For example, massive twin-rotored CH-47 Chinook helicopters, which can carry dozens of servicemen or hoist heavy loads beneath them, remain the workhorse heavy-lifter for the Army, even though they were originally delivered before 1975. Most of them have been remanufactured by Boeing Co. and are scheduled for further updates that could enable them to keep flying for another 35 years, military planners say.

For the most part, the Vietnam-era Bell Huey helicopters, which flew en masse to drop troops into the jungles, have been replaced with larger and more capable Black Hawks. But two-thirds of the Black Hawk fleet now exceeds 15 years of age. Apache attack helicopters, developed in the 1980s, are the Army's newest choppers, but they haven't altogether replaced their Vietnam War predecessor, the Cobra.

The average life span of a military helicopter is 20 years, compared with about 30 years for a commercial one. But the circumstances these aircraft fly in, including brutal weather and difficult terrain such as the deserts of Iraq and the jagged mountains of Afghanistan, take a severe toll.

Because of the lack of funds to buy new helicopters, an ambitious remanufacturing program is under way aimed at improving performance and staving off safety problems, military officials say. The aircraft are stripped down, then their metal airframes are treated for corrosion, engines and rotors are rebuilt, and their cockpits are loaded with new digital electronics and radar.

Manufacturers such as United Technologies Corp.'s Sikorsky Aircraft unit, which builds and refurbishes about 65 Black Hawks a year, have scrambled since the Gulf War in 1991 to upgrade and modify their craft to withstand tough desert conditions.

All told, the U.S. military is spending billions of dollars to update its older copters. But military officials say they are still concerned on the eve of a potential conflict about the relative health of the fleet. There remains "a severe aircraft-aging problem in the helicopter fleet, causing serious safety and readiness issues," says Loren Thompson, executive director of the Washington-based Lexington Institute, a military think tank.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Bergantz, program executive director for Army Aviation, says: "Because of the aging, more things are starting to fail. Our readiness rates are lower now and are getting lower over the years."

Still, Gen. Bergantz and other military officials insist that only a small percentage of helicopter accidents are attributable to equipment failures. A recent Black Hawk crash in upstate New York that killed 11 soldiers is being investigated.

In a war with Iraq, Apaches and Cobras would be expected to take out Iraqi ground troops that might attempt to head off U.S. forces moving in from Kuwait. Black Hawks and Hueys would be the main vehicles to swiftly ferry platoons of soldiers and marines into fighting position.

The other services often use similar aircraft, outfitted for their special needs. The Air Force and Navy, for example, plan to use the V-22, but in a more limited way than the Marines -- if the V-22 isn't scrapped.

For helicopters operating in the desert, one of the most insidious threats is sand. Not only do sandstorms kick up without notice, but an improper approach to landing can envelop a chopper in a dust cloud that can instantly disorient a pilot.

Maintenance crews are working overtime to undo the damage done to copters by the desert. After a few hours of operation, many of the most delicate parts of the jet engines that power helicopters can become coated with glass, from sand ingested into the compressor sections.

Since the Gulf War, the helicopter manufacturers have developed new intake filters that better strain the air sucked into the engines. They also have developed a clear tape that is applied to the leading edges of rotor blades to cut down on the sandblasting damage caused by the rotors whirling through dust clouds.

For now, to minimize the risk that a combination of aging aircraft and tough climactic conditions will result in fatal mishaps, Marine pilots have been drilling at their high-desert base near Twentynine Palms, Calif., and near their temporary headquarters in the Middle East. One Cobra pilot with the call sign "Weasel" says, "there's a lot more emphasis" at present on repeatedly practicing takeoffs and landings to get a feel for conditions and how their choppers respond.

At their base near Iraq, the 3rd Marine Airwing of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are reminded daily of the odds. Beneath the flight schedule hung on the wall in the mess hall, a posting declares, "In the Gulf War, 18 aircraft were destroyed. Only 3 were a result of direct enemy action." The squadron's commanding officer made it even clearer in a briefing last week for his pilots. "The enemy ain't going to kill you, probably. It's going to be these landings," he said.

The 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing's safety officer, Maj. Bruce Laughlin, says in the 1991 Gulf War more than a third of Marine helicopter mishaps -- from minor equipment damage to fatalities -- were a result of brownout conditions or other weather-related visibility problems. He says in Afghanistan -- where he flew 75 hours in Cobras made by Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter, of Forth Worth, Texas -- the numbers followed a similar trend.
 
Having taken a ride on a CH-46, I will admit that it is a braver person than myself who will volunteer to get on those things...

It was shaking quite badly, oil was dripping from overhead, and it was just overall not a good experience.
 
Having taken a ride on a CH-46, I will admit that it is a braver person than myself who will volunteer to get on those things...

It was shaking quite badly, oil was dripping from overhead, and it was just overall not a good experience.
Well, at least that helo had hydraulic fluid to leak! I had pretty much the same experience, though. The ramp was slick from the leaking fluid, despite the non-skid.
 
Marine rotary wing aviation is poised to modernize in a big way. The V-22 has resumed testing and will start up a new training and tactics development squadron next year. The H-1 upgrades program, which modernizes AH-1W and UH-1N choppers to more powerful and similar four-bladed versions with glass cockpits, is making good progress as well. I sure wish we had those birds in the sandbox right now.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
The V-22 is an aircraft I cannot support as it cannot be safely landed without power.

As for the age of the equipment, the critical factor is the number of flying hours since major overhaul. We can thank the Clinton administration for choking off the $ needed to keep the aircraft airworthy.

Check out the ages of the B52 fleet.... :D
 
What Aircraft can ??
With the notable exception of the V-22, ALL aircraft can.

Helicopters glide by autorotating, which merely involves keeping the rotor speed up until just before touchdown, then trading rotor speed for lift to cushion the landing. They don't glide as far as fixed wing aircraft, but they glide.

Fixed wing aircraft merely become gliders with dead engines hanging on them. Ever fly on a Boeing 767? One of the first ones in airline service in Canada ran out of fuel due to a screwup involving mixing up liters and gallons resulting in it taking off without enough fuel to make its destination. It glided to a safe landing at an old airfield. Nobody hurt, and the aircraft was just fine after being recovered and cleaning the cockpit upholstery.

A Cessna 337 twin has a glide ratio of 15:1, meaning it will travel about three miles for every thousand feet of altitude.
 
Old? You ain't seen old until you've seen a BUF. There are BUF pilots whose grandfathers flew them in the 60's.


What is a BUF he says? Well think of the biggest ugliest bomber you've ever seen. :D
 
Old? You ain't seen old until you've seen a BUF. There are BUF pilots whose grandfathers flew them in the 60's.


What is a BUF he says? Well think of the biggest ugliest bomber you've ever seen.
Make that the '50s.

BUF or BUFF = "Big Ugly F___er" or "Big Ugly Flying F___er" as in SNAFU = Situation Normal, All F___ed UP or FUBAR = F___ed Up Beyond All Recognition.
 
Ever fly on a Boeing 767? One of the first ones in airline service in Canada ran out of fuel due to a screwup involving mixing up liters and gallons resulting in it taking off without enough fuel to make its destination. It glided to a safe landing at an old airfield. Nobody hurt, and the aircraft was just fine after being recovered and cleaning the cockpit upholstery.
Awesome story. It was an amazing example of flying. Didn't they land in the Azores? Although I can't imagine how they could take off not knowing how much fuel they had onboard.
As for old aircraft, the majority of the heavy aircraft in the Air Force inventory are pre 1970. Most military aircraft receive intensive regular inspections, corrosion prevention and repair, refurbishment and upgrades to maintain air worthiness.
 
The V-22 is an aircraft I cannot support as it cannot be safely landed without power.
Remains to be seen. While autorotation is almost certainly not usable, the current recovery procedure for either dual-engine failure or simultaneaous engine/cross-shaft failure is to tilt the nacelles down, glide like an airplane (or more like the space shuttle) and flare at the bottom to arrest sink rate. The proprotor blades are designed to shed outward to avoid damage as they disintegrate. FWIW, there's never been an engine failure in a V-22 (yet). Also FWIW, the Safety Center tells me that approximately half of all actual autorotations wind up with survivors.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Awesome story. It was an amazing example of flying. Didn't they land in the Azores?
It was Air Canada flight 143, which ran dry at 41,000 feet on July 23, 1983. They landed at an abandoned RCAF airfield that was being used for auto racing in Gimli, Canada.
 
Also FWIW, the Safety Center tells me that approximately half of all actual autorotations wind up with survivors.
Hard to buy that. I'd accept that half of actual autorotations wind up with some damage to the aircraft, but they are very safe for occupants. Practicing autorotations in RW flight school used to be mandatory, but if chopper pilots have never practiced them before needing to perform one, odds are pretty good that they'll screw it up and flare early, which would result in a crash.

In any event, any aircraft that cannot be landed intact after a complete power failure is a result of an abominable design that never should have been put into production and CERTAINLY should NEVER be used to transport Marines or any people of lesser value.
 
I think the point to be raised here is whether this society of ours does not to rethink the amount we spend on our military. In an age of increasing threats to our survival we may need less butter and more guns. Not an easy sell to a couple of generations of Americans who are more consumers than citizens (at least judging by the voting turnouts).
 
I've flow in both Hueys (a little) and Blackhawks (alot). Blackhawk wins.

As for Apaches, I know from sorta :D -experience (assigned to 21st Cav Brigade for a year) that those things are a certifiable maintenance nightmare.
 
H-3s FOREVER!

I'd rather flap my arms and hope than catch a ride in a V-22. I can almost accept the losses in flight testing, but to put a hapless infantry squad in the back of one and then kill them all off because you wanted proof of concept for night formation NVG ops with a still less than proven aircraft is criminal. No one was punished, as I recall it was 19 marines plus aircrew that died in that Osprey crash.
 
Like it or not, aircraft crash. In development, in training, in peacetime and certainly in combat. If you or I are in one that does, it doesn't matter whether it's in the final stages of development or an aging veteran. And if you try hard enough, you can die and kill those with you in any aircraft ever made. You've got to obey the rules or suffer the consequences. The attributes that led to the crash at Marana in 2000 have not and will not change. But you'd better believe, there's one hell of a lot more respect for the warning signs that you're doing wrong if you allow the sink rate to build to near triple the limit. :mad:

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Blackhawk, sorry to quibble but the B-52H, the only model left, was rolled out in the early 60's. The A-G models were from the 50's but all were phased out. They all look alike but the planes still flying are the new improved Big Uglies. :cool:
 
Blackhawk, sorry to quibble but the B-52H, the only model left, was rolled out in the early 60's. The A-G models were from the 50's but all were phased out. They all look alike but the planes still flying are the new improved Big Uglies.
No problem, Meek. We're here to quibble, not to fight! :D

Think about this true anecdote:

There were three models of the aircraft I flew in Vietnam designaed as A, B, and C in order of intoduction in the '60s. Then they announced a D model to come into service in the early '70s. The D models were rebuilt As, Bs, and Cs.

My question is when did the aircraft still in service in the '90s enter service?

IMO, the answer is the '60s because the D models were made from airframes made then, not in the '70s.

I don't know if that situation is analogous to the B-52H or not. :D
 
So was that ironed out as the final cause Leatherneck? In laymans terms the pilot established a rate of controlled(he thought) descent that no aircraft in the world could power out of?

If so, why? Lack of training on the flight envelope? Night/NVG disorientation and forgot where the ground was or will we never know for sure since they are all dead?
 
Joe, Yes, that was the finding of the Mishap Investigation Report and the independent JAG investigation as well.

Picture this: Briefed up as a four-ship (division) non-combatant evacuation from a simulated embassy in the desert at night. After departure from their MOB, the flight splits into two sections of two. Lead errs slightly in his navigation and arrives in target area (Marana airport) high and hot. Lead starts a left descending turn, raising nacelles to 95 degrees and idle power. Lead aircraft decelerates rapidly and spits number two outside the turn (descending and decelerating). Copilot in lead comments on intercom "We ain't doing Two any favors here" or words close to that. Number two by now is hung out to dry if he tries to stay behind lead and continue the formation approach to the LZ. Everyone knowledgable of the circumstances wishes to God that the crew of number two had recognized their peril and gone around. But good old Marine "can do" got the better of them and they tried to salvage a situation by sucking power, raising the nacelles as far as they would go (98 degrees) and setting up a sink rate that at one point reached 2300 fpm at less than 40 knots forward airspeed. (The limit below 40 knots was and is 800 fpm, as in many/most helicopters).

As the pilot (probably) sensed a little uncommanded roll-off, he tried to control with lateral stick and pedal, which immediately precipitated the drastic roll departure that we now understand too well. At about 90 degrees of bank, the nose sliced down, and the aircraft impacted in a near-vertical dive, which of course was not survivable. In deference to the crew, the phenomenon known as Vortex Ring State and the predicted behavior of the aircraft (roll-off departyre) were both known, but not (obviously) sufficiently stressed in training and the flight simulators. As the situation that night was so drastically dynamic, it's likely that no real or artificial warning system would have prevented the crash.

What I think (hope) will prevent future occurrences is (a) widespread V-22 community understanding of and respect for VRS and high rate-of-descent characteristics of the tiltrotor; (b) improved simulator representation of the real aircarft characteristics; (c) an artificial warning system at low airspeed and high sink rate (i.e., a "Bitchin' Betty"); and (d) optimized recovery procedures from incipient VRS (nacelles down below 80 degrees, add power cautiously and fly out straight ahead.

Are there risks? Yup. But there are risks in chugging up the road to Baghdad at 500 feet and 120 knots in old CH-46s that are trying to fall apart all too regularly as well. I say give me the ability to go 500+/- miles at 15,000 feet at 250 knots and I'll be careful when I get to the LZ. There are some who disagree with me, to say the least. We'll see, I guess.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
Leatherneck, the fallacy in your thinking is comparing new V-22s with old CH-46s. Compare new V-22s with new Ch-46s, whatever they might be. Then the risks of the inherently unsafe tilt rotor design become quite visible compared to the proven designs of conventional rotor choppers, IMO. :D

Besides, as we've been discussing, with aircraft, everything old can be new again.
 
Everything old cannot be made new again with aircraft. Because of their construction, airframes do not have infinite fatigue life. At some point you will run into diminishing returns where it is cheaper to build a new aircraft.

As for the V22, I didn't have a high opinion of the "Hunley" until I actually talked with some Navy helicopter pilots. They enlightened me on helicopters and VRS. The V22 pilot had his aircraft so far out of the safety envelope as to be inexcusable. A helicopter flown in the same way would have simply fallen out of the sky. What is truly amazing is that the first V22 in the formation didn't enter VRS and crash as well.

The Navy pilot also pointed out that the V22 can recover from VRS faster than any helicopter and requires significantly less altitude to do so. Just tilt the rotor forward and go.

As for the Huey vs Blackhawk comment. The Huey has one engine. The Huey is the reason the Blackhawk and every other army helicopter have at least 2 engines. The Blackhawk is an improvement over a Huey in every way. No Blackhawk has ever shook itself apart because of the vibrations of its door guns, the same cannot be said for the Huey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top