Defense of the Republic of the Philippines

making noises about how good or cheap the Russian helos are

lol, I guess when they say 4th they mean 1. Gold 2. Silver 3. Bronze 4. Certificate hahahaha

Yep. 

My point exactly. Someone is making sh*t up again. 👿

It is Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), after all.

Apparently it's not enough to stand on your own accomplishments. Haven't these guys heard of the internet and fact checking. Shame.

It wasn't PDI that participated in EX CP, so it clearly wasn't even close to "their accomplishments". 

Which is my way of saying 'we have to be careful'.
I'd give the SR team kudos for participating.
I'd also like to give the ACPA the benefit of the doubt: LTCOL Villanueva isn't quoted on that "4th out of 139".
I'd even go so far (and it's quite far indeed) as to give the author Frances Mangosing some rope: she's been
on the .mil beat a decent amount of time, even though her past work has been as-spotty. Her editors, on the
other hand, are where the buck o' blame ultimately stops.

....and I fall for it every damned time.
 


But seriously, Mi-8 vs. MH-60R is apples vs. oranges.
A fairer match-up might be vs CH-47, but Chinooks are very long in the tooth and more to the point,
no one is touting them for PAF.

What the hell, some factors that render the Hip as inferior actually stand independent of fruit-type.

Foremost is yes, readiness rates, which ties directly into three problems: the first two being MIC of 75
hrs, and a very low quality assurance in the parts-supply chain, with complaints of replacement parts
being out of spec. It's not enough to say that Maintenance/Inspection is pinged every 75h, since the
real problem is how long the aircraft spends in downtime each time, and there are no reliable figures
to lean on precisely because of the third issue: Russian protocols wrt to Maintenance/Inspection are
different --documentation is poor, and this is one reason why .ru aircraft have failed to make greater
commercial inroads to Europe. Russian safety assurance standards are simply not up to Western snuff.
At least with MH-60, the OEM can claim readiness of 98%, or stated another way, a MTBOMF of roughly
20 hrs (albeit for Knighthawk, not necessarily Romeo).

The key factor in readiness, apart from better quality control in parts-supply, has been CBM: US rotary
air has benefited greatly from onboard livetime monitoring of an aircraft's systems, such that the MIC
of Knighthawk is 168 hrs compared to Hip's 75 hrs. That's a palpable indicator of superior readiness
for the 'hawk --even before we get to quantifying the DOWNTIME per cycle.

CPFH? We can try to eliminate the disparity in ground/air crew wages between RU and US by using
information from a Western operator of Mi-17, Berliner Spezialflug, which suggests a Hip CPFH (as
flown to quasi-Western safety standards) of around US$4,375, unadjusted for inflation since 2000,
or IOW US$5,900+ in 2013 ...versus US$5,000 for a Romeo 'hawk also in 2013.

Again, apples vs oranges, but those were the platforms mentioned initially.
Other capability-based differences are too dependent on fruit-type

What CAN be surmised is this:
If you want to hemorrhage operating funds AND have shit-low readiness, go with the Hip.





https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=793811
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2016/2016_f_h.pdf
https://www.rotorandwing.com/2005/04/01/making-maintenance-manageable/
http://fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_4d207ff6-8ce2-11e2-89f7-001a4bcf887a.html
https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-186762.html

Unfortunately, the MOST accessible difference between Hips and 'hawks is cost.
You could purchase two 17-1's for the price of just one monkey-model Romeo 'hawk.


MH-60R - SAR - 31 DEC 2011.pdf


SIPRI

Quote from: jetmech on November 03, 2018, 12:51:43 PM

   Closest I could find right now, outdated though, 2007 http://www.navybmr.com/study%20material/NAVAIR%2004-10-506.pdf.

http://defenseph.net/bootcamp/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/6.jpg

^That shows how you measure extent of cracking, cuts, chunking or other damage which frankly
can be classified as more-localized effects than the cumulative wear apparent in the Morota pics.

Setting aside the obvious differences in tread-wear rates between USAF and USN contexts (since
the launch and recovery/landing methods are different), Section 3-8 ("TREAD WEAR"), as already
cited by jet, seems more appropriate, with respect to what sbhntr -who should be lauded for it-
spotted in the Morota photographs.

Fig 3-2 illustrates tread sections exhibiting different types of wear, for use as a diagnostic tool in
detecting camber/inflation problems, but also includes an illustration of "EXCESSIVE" wear, with
the tread ribs completely gone:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/90oxzr.jpg

Section 3-8a mentions tread-wear indicators, which are oblong pits in the ribs: basically, once
the rib wears down to flush with the tread-wear indicator, it's past time to replace tires. In the
Morota photos that started this thread, there is zero rib remaining visible, so to me, it's rather
superfluous to ask where the tread-wear indicators would have been. The ribs are gone, the
protector ply seems gone in spots, potentially on down to past the undertread.

In any case, I understand that unlike USN, USAF refers to MWL markings (max. wear limit) on the
tire sidewalls (per MIL-PRF-5041 Rev. J), but marginally-overinflating the tire could cause the tread's
center to wear down excessively, long before the MWL marks would be pinged: such a trick might
artificially "prolong a tire's service life", but at what risk/cost? USN's safeguards seem much more
reliable.

To get back to USN NAVAIR...
Although 3-8a notes that "the exposure of nylon plies  (fabric  reinforcement,  casing,  etc.)  is 
not considered a wear depth indicator", it also states "the maximum allowable tread wear for
tires not having wear depth indicators shall be when the tread pattern is worn to the bottom of
the tread groove at any spot on the tire, regardless of whether wear is the result of skidding or
normal use.", and this is what I believe we are seeing in the Morota photos.

Fig. 3-3, although illustrating much more localized skid (excessive brake) effects, nevertheless
also shows how the compromise of multiple tire layers/plies can lead to catastrophic failure. In
the photos that led to this discussion, we see nowhere near Fig 3-3's level of localized damage,
and for the likely reason that the braking environment and process in USN recovery is different
from that of USAF or PAF landings. Fig. 3-3 most likely shows tire damage after a single event
of skidding/excessive braking, whereas the wear visible from the Morota photos is more likely
the cumulative result of several landing cycles.

Ultimately...
If PAF TO allows such a state of aircraft tires, there may be nothing left to discuss, especially
given how some want to interpret this thread as a personal attack on members of PAF, and/or
as a wholesale attack on PAF itself.

that's not my organization. At least more a dozen set of eyes saw it!

it does indeed appear that someone made a judgement call that it was acceptable.

Doesn't matter how many Mk.1's "saw" it.
If the one uphill is ignorant, then any shit reported up just rolls back downhill.

You really gotta have to give it to Efrain for always getting great shots of these birds! 

Truly so.   

Duterte, Citing Hitler, Says He Wants to Kill 3 Million

Duterte apologizes to Jews for Hitler remark: ‘No intention to derogate’...

Duterte in Israel says sorry...

.