Online Extra: Getting the best combat rescue chopper

I’m indebted to retired Army Chief Warrant Officer Richard Krell for his service to our nation, but I’m compelled to respond to his March 18 commentary, “Searching for a way to rescue a failed contract bid?” Krell champions the Boeing Co.’s entry in an Air Force competition to replace its fleet of aging combat search and rescue (CSAR) helicopters, which are regularly called upon to perform life-and-death missions for our men and women in uniform.

Although I disagree with his conclusion, I respect Krell’s right to choose sides in the competition. But he takes a step too far by criticizing Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky for protesting the award of the CSAR contract to Boeing and its HH-47 Chinook.

Krell described Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin, for which I work, as “disgruntled contractors who are protesting the acquisition of badly needed new rescue helicopters.” How, I might ask, would Krell characterize Boeing following its recent decision to protest the Air Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman and EADS to replace its fleet of aging aerial refueling tankers? (See March 1 news story “Northrop Grumman-Airbus wins air-tanker contract.”)

He went on to assert that, after the CSAR protesters lodged “a laundry list of complaints with the Government Accountability Office,” we now are “forcing the independent agency to concede a minor technical inconsistency regarding how the Air Force calculated maintenance costs.” How does Krell characterize the long list of complaints Boeing has submitted to the GAO in its own protest?

Although it’s true that the GAO sustained just one of the points protested on CSAR-X, it involves much more than “a minor technical inconsistency” and goes to the heart of the lifetime cost of owning and operating the new helicopters — an evaluation in which billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

It’s curious that Krell didn’t comment on the fact that Boeing raised a strikingly similar argument in its efforts to overturn the tanker award. He also conveniently overlooked questions that others have raised in connection with the CSAR procurement, such as secretive, last-minute requirements changes that favored Boeing’s helicopter. That’s especially curious because, in its protest of the tanker award, Boeing claims to be the victim of exactly such changes.

Finally, I must take issue with Krell’s statement that “what makes the gambit so tawdry is that nearly no one disagrees that the winning helicopter manufactured by American-based Boeing Co. is the most sophisticated rescue helicopter with the highest top speed, longest range, largest carrying capacity and the lowest risk.”

Many of those attributes are debatable, but everyone agrees that Boeing’s HH-47 is by far the largest helicopter vying for the CSAR role — one in which smaller helicopters are typically thought to have an advantage in such critical areas as avoiding hostile fire in the pickup zone.

In fact, in the 40 years that the H-47 Chinook has been in service, no service or military command has ever selected the H-47 as a dedicated CSAR platform of choice. This fact is well understood by senior Air Force officials, some of whom have stated publicly that it was not the helicopter they would have selected.

All that is tawdry are the continuing efforts to paint competitors who protest decisions that go in Boeing’s favor as “short-sighted contractors who seemingly ignore the urgency of the needs on the front lines” while Boeing’s right to protest decisions that go against it apparently is above reproach.
That’s more than tawdry. It’s downright hypocritical.

— Mike Bergstresser, retired Air Force colonel and former combat rescue pilot, Fairfax Station, Va.

As I read Krell’s commentary, I wondered why a retired Army Chinook pilot would express such an interest in the Air Force’s search for a replacement rescue helicopter.

Internet research revealed that Krell is an experienced Army pilot with 16 years in Army Chinooks, flying chiefly cargo and assault missions in both training and combat environments as a standardization instructor pilot (SIP). He has zero hours flying Air Force combat rescue missions and isn’t an expert on combat search and rescue (CSAR) tactical employment.

Apparently he wasn’t too concerned about the age and condition of those helicopters until the GAO upheld the contract protest. I was unable to find any similar impassioned pleas from him asking Congress, or anyone else, for a new helicopter for the Air Force rescue crews until then. Why I wonder?

What about the tanker replacement contract now under protest by Boeing, the maker of the Chinook, using the same “archaic and inflexible rules”? Why doesn’t he write about that? It’s the Air Force’s No. 1 acquisition priority. What about the other aging Air Force aircraft badly in need of replacement?

I also find it interesting that Krell should claim: “But what makes the gambit so tawdry is that nearly no one disagrees that the winning helicopter manufactured by American-based Boeing Co. is the most sophisticated rescue helicopter with the highest top speed, longest range, largest carrying capacity and the lowest risk.”

If he really knew anything about the subject, he’d know that is blatantly inaccurate. The Boeing Web site says: “The Chinook is a multi-mission, heavy-lift transport helicopter. Its primary mission is to move troops, artillery, ammunition, fuel, water, barrier materials, supplies and equipment on the battlefield. Its secondary missions include medical evacuation, disaster relief, search and rescue, aircraft recovery, fire fighting, parachute drops, heavy construction and civil development.”

The H-47 is a derivative of that helicopter. The Chinook is undeniably the world’s finest helicopter for troop movement, artillery emplacement and battlefield resupply.

As a retired Air Force fighter pilot who flew in combat, no one has more interest in quickly fielding a replacement helicopter for our airmen than I do. Certainly not Krell. It’s the Air Force’s No. 2 acquisition priority after the tanker.

I have flown those old helicopters and the crews used to work for me. The Air Force CSAR crews deserve the most capable platform in which to perform the most difficult mission in modern aerial warfare: combat search and rescue.

The “terminal area,” in which the survivor is located, is where the CSAR mission really begins and that’s what makes CSAR different from all the other missions flown by helicopters.

Although speed, range, and carrying capacity are important, anyone with CSAR experience knows that such attributes as downwash, survivability, brownout, footprint, gun coverage and signature are much more important in a hotly contested landing zone.

It’s not just important to get the Air Force crews the right helicopter for the high-risk CSAR mission. As a taxpayer, I think it’s also important to get the best value for our scarce defense dollars. The protest process is part of a checks-and-balances system that ensures the nation is getting what it paid for.
Competition always brings out the best in anything. It helps keep cost down and quality up. I think it’s good to have a fair acquisition competition and apparently so does the GAO.

The system is working as it should to produce the badly needed CSAR helicopter replacement. Let’s give it a chance before we send in a bunch of emotional editorials that aren’t fact-based, only represented to be so.

— Kenneth M. DeCuir, retired Air Force major general, Annandale, Va.

I’m writing in response to Krell’s criticism of the Air Force’s decision to reopen competition for a replacement for the HH-60 Pavehawk combat search and rescue helicopter.

Krell would have us believe that the better aircraft, the Boeing HH-47, won the initial competition and that the villains of the piece are Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky for having cited “arcane” contracting rules in their protests, thus denying our Air Force rescue warriors a sorely needed replacement for their still-capable, but aging, HH-60s.

Krell is right on one point: our Air Force rescue warriors — masters of the dangerous and demanding combat rescue mission — badly need a replacement helicopter. The HH-47 is not that helicopter.

To assert, as Krell does, that the HH-47 is “the most sophisticated rescue helicopter with the highest top speed, longest range, largest carrying capacity, and the best capabilities at the lowest cost” is misleading at best.

The specific performance parameters Krell cited are of peripheral importance in the combat rescue role. The critical parameter is agility — the ability to get in and out quickly when making a combat save — and survive enemy fire in the process.

There, the HH-47 falls short. Beyond being a bigger target, it’s significantly more vulnerable to battle damage than the Lockheed US-101 or Sikorsky S-92. Perhaps the HH-47 would cost less in dollars than the other competitors, but at what cost in human lives?

I write as a military historian and as an Air Force combat rescue helicopter pilot with two Southeast Asia combat tours. Although I have contacts on the rosters of all three contractors, I have no personal interest in the outcome of the competition beyond concern for the welfare of our rescue warriors.

— John F. Guilmartin Jr., retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and professor of history at Ohio State University, Columbus

Comments

[david calvert Weatherford, TX]

I have NOT had to fly on a H-47 in combat (Thankfully)- but I have flown on them in training exercises as well as the old UH-1 (AIRBORNE!!).

From an old ground pounder viewpoint - I never considered the Chinook as a rescue type aircraft.

I think somebody up there got paid off.

DRC