Posted on 11/10/2007 9:23:53 AM PST by BGHater
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Army is spending $2.6 billion on hundreds of European-designed helicopters for homeland security and disaster relief that turn out to have a crucial flaw: They aren't safe to fly on hot days, according to an internal report obtained by The Associated Press.
While the Army scrambles to fix the problem — adding millions to the taxpayer cost — at least one high-ranking lawmaker is calling for the whole deal to be scrapped.
During flight tests in Southern California in mild, 80-degree weather, cockpit temperatures in the UH-72A Lakota soared above 104, the point at which the Army says the communication, navigation and flight control systems can overheat and shut down.
No cockpit equipment failed during the nearly 23 hours of testing, according to the Pentagon report, prepared in July. But the report concluded that the aircraft "is not effective for use in hot environments."
The Army told the AP that to fix the cockpit overheating problem, it will take the highly unusual step of adding air conditioners to many of the 322 helicopters ordered.
The retrofitting will cost at least $10 million and will come out of the Army's budget, according to the Army.
California Rep. Duncan Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, told the AP that the lightweight helicopter will still have too many weaknesses.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
AP IMPACT: New Army chopper overheats (among other problems)
and the one from August
Eurocopter chopper has serious problems, Pentagon testers say
Great. The damn thing would not even start up here in Texas. And that is sitting in the shade.
European-designed helicopters for homeland securityAnd there's a flaw?
Probably made by a Jimmy Carter owned company.
The Army, in its infinite penny pinching wisdom, chose not to equip the helicopters with air conditioning which is standard equipment on the commercial version of this aircraft. You must remember that this is the same outfit that was buying berets from a Chicomm company to save money.
Dumb question here by a civilian non-aviator:
What’s the virtue of a triple tail on the Lakota?
More agile manuevering?
We could try these birds in Alaska but they probably couldn’t take the extreme cold.
I see another potential design flaw. If they are going to use these things to patrol our southern border, there is not enough room available for a 7.62 minigun system.
Probably. I do know that it should lower the airspeed at which they take over the yaw function. But at very low forward speeds they are not going to do much, it will be up to the tail rotor. In fact they might be detrimental in maneuvering at low speeds in cross-winds.
Thanks for the comment.
While I guess one plane (the Constellation?) benefited from a “triple tail”,
the triple tail on the Lakota sort of reminded me of the six-bolted
air cleaner on a friend’s old Fiat (128?).
Safe, secure, and totally a waste of time when servicing.
How many of the current border patrol helicopters are armed with a minigun?
None. Pity.
These things wouldnt happen if the military held its own more accountable for buying this crap. Instead, the guy in charge probably got a promotion and is doing some joint staff billet right now.
We had a tent the the Marines that always broke when we took them too the field. The design was just doodoo, but hey, it cost 1500 bucks and held 4 men. I asked the syscom guys about it at a meeting (I was a supO) and was told, well it was designed to be set up and taken down 29 times. I started laughing, I said the grunts displace! Thats the point, they dont just go camping, the constantly are on the move. They could do that in a couple of weeks! Whatever idiot wrote that spec did so so they could buy THAT tent and that is where the problems all start. I could have bought a truck load of tents from walmarts for 1500 bucks and just handed them out and never got any back and still come out cheaper.
Invest our money not reinventing the wheel, but where we need the technology and budget to develop and procure systems that will make a difference, i.e. missile defense, FCS, F22, JSF, submarine upgrades, F18SH upgrades, etc. This machine will not see combat, it’s an economical taxi cab that is in initial procurement, operational hour and cost per pound per mile moved cheaper than the UH60 that currently fills these roles in the National Guard and Homeland Security. Think about this - we’re using a 4000HP with 13000 pound lift machine to move a VIP from point A to B. We need those UH60s in Iraq and Afghanistan where we are rapidly putting thousands of hours on airframes and we have them tied up in the US carrying a governor, a single sick dude with a paramedic. What alternatives do you suggest? A Bell 206L or 412?
Cost effective, available near immediately, low risk and highly capable (within its niche), this platform was a good buy. -IMHO
The DoD flies around VIPs, does MEDEVAC, has it’s own internal administrative flights and other things to consider. This platform is to do the busy work for which you don’t need a more expensive, much more powerful UH-60, currently used to do a lot of these things. We are procuring 322, a relative (for our DoD) small number. Consider that UH-60 alone we bought over 2600, OH-58 over 2000, CH47 near 1000 plus CH53, CH46, etc. The DoD is buying a small number because this machine fills a small niche; the light small utility helicopter, not really intended for combat but things which especially the National Guard finds themselves doing often.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.