Author Topic: Mi17 versus UH60 Blackhawk, Afghanistan operations perspective  (Read 2643 times)

Manokski

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Mi17 versus UH60 Blackhawk, Afghanistan operations perspective
« on: November 06, 2018, 12:24:28 AM »
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/10/another-round-of-afg-rw-argument.html

"From the combat and operational perspectives, when comparing the capabilities of Blackhawks and Mi-17s, among several different factors, three key elements should be considered: speed, maneuver, and lethality. First, Blackhawks are faster than Mi-17s … Second, Blackhawks are lighter and smaller than Mi-17s, and therefore, more maneuverable … Taliban were, in fact, scared of American Blackhawks because they were more maneuverable and acted more aggressively when operating against insurgents. While very few Mi-17 helicopters have been designated gunships, out of 159 Blackhawks 60 would be designated gunships which will bring maneuver, firepower, and enable more and aggressive tactics allowing the AAF to destroy the Taliban elements on the battlefield, limiting their operational and tactical space.
…
From the maintenance perspective, the US would provide the majority of aircraft parts to the AAF faster from Bagram and Kadahar, as opposed to Mi-17 parts which were not only exceedingly expensive but also required more time and negotiations to be made with the Russian government, an unreliable broker, at best. The result placed Mi-17s in the “…state of steady decline,” situation. For example, according to SIGAR, “Out of unavailable Mi-17s, six of them are in overhaul, four are in heavy repair, and six have expired.” … this plan will provide overhaul inspections to the American aircraft quicker than the past because the Afghan government had to send the Russian aircraft to countries like Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia for overhaul inspections, while Blackhawks can be inspected inside Afghanistan, by American and Afghan trained maintenance personnel."

Hopefully, someone is reading these things in the quest (in the truest sense of that word since the PAF effort to get a new helicopter can be classified as "Arthurian") to get new equipment.  Hopefully the idea of maintainability and operability is rated highly over the political drive to simply buy Russian.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 12:28:43 AM by Manokski »

horge

  • Timawan
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Mi17 versus UH60 Blackhawk, Afghanistan operations perspective
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2018, 08:06:59 PM »
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



Manokski

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Mi17 versus UH60 Blackhawk, Afghanistan operations perspective
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2018, 05:40:46 AM »
So does the PAF double the purchase - twice the number of airframes to get the same number of flyable airframes. Seems to be a false economy to go that way just because it would be cheaper.  After all the proof of the pudding is in the number of airframes flying. Not in the number sitting waiting for parts.

horge

  • Timawan
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Mi17 versus UH60 Blackhawk, Afghanistan operations perspective
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2018, 06:28:24 AM »
Hey, Manolet, I'm on your side in this.
Nevertheless, we are talking about a DND acquisition-process that is increasingly politically-driven.

If PAF get Hips, Malacanang can defend it with lower initial cost per airframe, which the electorate can more
easily digest than lifecycle-cost or platform-readiness discussions
. If PAF gets Hueys, never mind Hawks,
Malacanang can pretend to have gotten excellent terms obtained from the US because it flirted with the
Russians. Call it "sabong" selection if you will: recall the somewhat recent pronouncement out of DND that
JAS39 was the apple of its eye, while EDA Falcon remained in pole position..

I'd like to imagine that US materiel, new build or EDA, remains the leading contenderacross the board, but
in this particular process (combat rotary wing), all bets are off.

So does the PAF double the purchase - twice the number of airframes to get the same number of flyable airframes. Seems to be a false economy to go that way just because it would be cheaper.  After all the proof of the pudding is in the number of airframes flying. Not in the number sitting waiting for parts.

The President's fanboys can legitimately point out, as well, that the article you cited presents a milieu of
logistical contrasts that do not apply to the Philippines: in Afghanistan there was a US footprint; more to
the point, there was a US Blackhawk support-tail that would have provided logistical support for putative
Afghan Blackhawks --but ONLY for so long as said US footprint persisted. Here in the Philippines, there is
no such US support-tail for US Blackhawks, which any putative PAF hawks could piggyback on.

The real argument against Hip is that it's a shit platform, but good luck explaining WHY, context-neutral,
in a way that the ignorant will get it, or accept it. It's like having a discussion with Armata fanbois: why
even bother?

Manokski

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: Mi17 versus UH60 Blackhawk, Afghanistan operations perspective
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2018, 04:10:54 AM »
Lol, wasn't really thinking of sides. Just trying to get a rise of out of you :) since your input is always informative and entertaining.

horge

  • Timawan
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Re: Mi17 versus UH60 Blackhawk, Afghanistan operations perspective
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2018, 11:35:43 AM »
....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
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 11:37:52 AM by horge »