USAF Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH)

[Triton]

RFP Kicks Off USAF Combat Rescue Helo
Posted by Graham Warwick 7:22 AM on Oct 23, 2012

CSAR-X is dead, long live CSAR-X – only please call it Combat Rescue Helicopter, or CRH. In the latest attempt to replace its aging Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawk combat search-and-rescue helicopters, the U.S. Air Force has released the request for proposals for CRH, providing insight into the changes made in a bid to make the program affordable and avoid a repeat of the CSAR-X debacle.

The CRH requirement is for 112 aircraft, with a not-to-exceed price for the program of $6.848 billion. Contract award is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013 and will cover 14 years of development, production and initial sustainment. The CSAR-X program, cancelled in 2009, was valued at up to $10 billion for 141 helicopters.

Likely contenders include the Boeing CH-47 (winner of the original CSAR-X contest in 2006), Bell Boeing V-22, Northrop Grumman/AgustaWestland AW101, and Sikorsky/Lockheed Martin UH-60M. EADS North America may also bid, possibly with the NH90 (built jointly with AgustaWestland), or potentially the Eurocopter EC725.

The drive for affordability is reflected in the planned contract structure. Engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) and low-rate initial production (LRIP) will be fixed-price incentive firm (FPIF). Full-rate production will be firm fixed price. Only “over and above” studies and analyses will be traditional cost plus fixed fee.

Under CRH, nine aircraft are to be acquired during EMD – four on FY16 for development testing and five in FY18 for operational testing. LRIP will cover two lots totaling 18 aircraft in FY19 and 20. The remaining 85 are to be acquired in firm fixed-price full-rate production from FY21-26 at around 14 aircraft a year.

According to the RFP, the contract will incentivize bidders “to reduce costs and share the savings through the FPIF contract during EMD and LRIP”. The FPIF contract provides an 11% profit margin at target cost, and mandatory 50:50 government/contractor cost sharing up to a ceiling price of 120% of the target cost. In addition, 1% of target cost has been set aside as an incentive for performing to schedule.

Bids will first have to pass through an affordability target gate before they are evaluated further. Only bids with an adjusted total evaluated price at or below $6.848 billion will get through this gate. The total evaluated price will be the bidder's total proposed price plus adjustments for fuel cost and use of government special tooling and test equipment and minus any credit evaluators give the bidder for exceeding the technical goals.

Up to 7% of total proposed price is available as a credit, and the technical goals give greatest weighting to hover performance. The hover requirement is a minimum of 4,000ft and a goal of 6,000ft pressure altitude on a 35°C day. Combat radius is a minimum of 195nm and goal of 225nm. Payload is a minimum of 500lb of recovery personnel and 500lb of equipment; the goal is 750lb and 750lb. Cabin space is required for a minimum of two litters, with a goal of four.

Technical compliance, technical risk and past performance will be go/no-go factors in the evaluation, and the winner will be the bid judged to have acceptable compliance, risk and past performance at the lowest total evaluated price. It's complex procedure, but reminiscent of the approach the Air Force adopted, successfully, for the restaged KC-X tanker competition.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a02eaab0a-317e-4b98-8774-bc1faedaf2ea

No Sikorsky X2?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Betcha it ends up being the Hook or the Osprey.

 

[yasotay]

betcha it ends up a UH-60M! Cheap and in production. No new training requirements beyond glass cockpit.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

betcha it ends up a UH-60M! Cheap and in production. No new training requirements beyond glass cockpit.

Is the Chinook not in production? because last August it hit 50 years:

"Chinook is Boeing’s longest continuously running production program"

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2389

Im not trying to be a jerk, I just don't follow your reasoning. If cheap, in production, and nothing really new is required then the Chinook is very much in the mix by your logic.


They already have Uh-60s, and they are too short legged. There is a reason they wanted the Hook in the original CSAR-X. They want something big that can actually go a long distance. H-60s are not that.

Im Good friends with a former USAF 53 guy and 3 USAF H-60 guys they all tell me the same thing. I know bunch of MH-47 guys with the 160th and they have been waiting for USAF to get it together with the Chinook forever. They thought it was a slam dunk after the 53s retired, but alas...

Hell the USAF wanted the hook so bad they rigged the CSAR-X contract, and thats why we are getting to start all over again. Its pretty clear what they want I would think.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't understand why Sikorsky has kept offering platforms well below the sizing preferred by USAF; first the S-92 and now the H-60. They still have H-53s in production and could have put together something perfect for CSAR-X/CRH. Something like a H-53A-D (twin engine, six blade rotor) with H-53K technology. They could have even called it PAVE LOW V.

 

[TomS]

The H-53 was out because CSAR-X had a requirement to be mission ready within 3 hours of being delivered by C-5. Since you have to pull the rotor and main gearbox on an H-53 to stuff it into a C-5, that timeframe was impossible to achieve.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The H-53 was out because CSAR-X had a requirement to be mission ready within 3 hours of being delivered by C-5. Since you have to pull the rotor and main gearbox on an H-53 to stuff it into a C-5, that timeframe was impossible to achieve.

Bingo. Plus any H-53X would have needed a lot of UTC money and it was clear from things like the C-5 requirement that USAF wanted a H-47. So it wasn't a good idea to spend shareholders money on an aircraft the customer didn't want. And fair enough on the H-47 too it is in the right size and performance bracket and is common with all those US Army and allied H-47s in theatre to leverage common support chains. If only the Marines had brought the H-47 in place of the V-22 then everyone would have the same aircraft and with those tens of billions saved, take your pick...

 

[Triton]

I don't know where the CSAR-X competition went wrong and became a debacle, but with that program being cancelled and replaced with the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) can the Boeing HH-47 proposal win it again?

Video of Boeing HH-47 CSAR

http://youtu.be/aPGYkeAaE1o

Artist's impression of the Boeing HH-47.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:02eaab0a-317e-4b98-8774-bc1faedaf2ea
http://militarytimes.com/multimedia/interactive/070302helicopter/

 

[Triton]

What about the Northrop Grumman/AgustaWestland AW101?

 

[TomS]

The H-53 was out because CSAR-X had a requirement to be mission ready within 3 hours of being delivered by C-5. Since you have to pull the rotor and main gearbox on an H-53 to stuff it into a C-5, that timeframe was impossible to achieve.

Having looked further, I'm confused as to how the H-47 is supposed to meet that requirement either -- all the pics I can find of a CH-47 aboard a C-5 show both rotors and their associated gearboxes removed -- there is no way that's getting replaced in 3 hours. Apparently, that requirement was relaxed somewhere along the way, which is how the HH-47 got selected in the first place.

 

[Evil Flower]

Why would it be so difficult to buy a helicopter that has been in production for 50 years that they had to cancel the procurement program?

 

[TomS]

Basically, the Air Force got caught evaluating the CSAR-X bids on criteria other than the ones they stated in the solicitation. The solicitation defined life-cycle cost one way, but the evaluators calculated it another way. (Was it ebcause they didn't liek the answers they got form the original formula? That would be my guess.). GAO upheld the losing bidders' protests and told the Air Force to let the them revise their offers and then reassess the bids. If the HH-47 wasn't the best value after that, the Boeing contract was to be cancelled and a contract awarded to the actual best value offer.

Instead, the Air Force decided to cancel the whole contract and reissue it as a new program (at the convenience of the government, so they ended up eating a whole lot of Boeing's costs to that point). I assume this is because they knew they couldn't rig the old competition the way they wanted and had to start over to get the aircraft they had already decided they wanted.

Sound familiar?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The -47 can fly further and higher and carry more with power to spare which good because USAF Spec Ops Helos were once described to me as "Buy a hot performer and then load it down with stuff until it can barely fly" in that regard the -47 can be loaded with the most gizmos.

The canadians are still waiting for their S-92s

The USAF knew what it wanted, which is why the -47 was invited to a "medium helicopter" competition

 

[Evil Flower]

So just buy the 47? Why need to have a competition at all? The whole point of off-the-shelf procurement is that you don't waste billions of cash and several years reinventing the wheel.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So just buy the 47? Why need to have a competition at all? The whole point of off-the-shelf procurement is that you don't waste billions of cash and several years reinventing the wheel.

The Canadians went and just "sole sourced" the -47. we wont though

Of course we will have a competition, things have to appear fair after all. Its a dog and pony show, been on the inside of a few. Politicians have to stump for the choice that brings jobs to their district. The Sikorsky Pols need to fight for their aircraft and paint the others as needless, expensive, or needlessly expensive.

Its not meant to be efficient. Everyone knows what the USAF wants, its not a secret. Its Even what the US Army wants because it means easier cooperation.

 

[yasotay]

I agree that 47 would be a great choice. Heck I would vote for V-22 if money was no issue. Unfortunately money IS an issue. That is why I think H-60 is the mostl likely candidate. When money is tight requirement start getting shaved away. Maybe USAF Inc. will surprise me and actually do a good job of it.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I agree that 47 would be a great choice. Heck I would vote for V-22 if money was no issue. Unfortunately money IS an issue. That is why I think H-60 is the mostl likely candidate. When money is tight requirement start getting shaved away. Maybe USAF Inc. will surprise me and actually do a good job of it.

They already have the amount they can spend laid out though. Whether they buy 200 H-60s or 100 -47s, the amount is fixed, so Im guessing they will buy what they want in fewer numbers, instead of large fleets of what they already have and dont want.

If the USAF always jumped on the cheapest thing regardless of capability we would have Combat Cessna 172s in the hundreds of thousands.

 

[piko1]

-47 is better than Northrop Grumman/AgustaWestland AW101 and Eurocopter's Cougar but -60 is better

w8 a sec w8 a sec
" If the USAF always jumped on the cheapest thing regardless of capability we would have Combat Cessna 172s in the hundreds of thousands. "

that's why USAF ended up with hundreds of thousands of the most useless fighter in the world to day aka F-16
seams legit

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

that's why USAF ended up with hundreds of thousands

That amount you stated above is why I don't need to listen to what you say below.

most useless fighter in the world to day aka F-16

Nice try though.

 

[yasotay]

I agree that 47 would be a great choice. Heck I would vote for V-22 if money was no issue. Unfortunately money IS an issue. That is why I think H-60 is the mostl likely candidate. When money is tight requirement start getting shaved away. Maybe USAF Inc. will surprise me and actually do a good job of it.

They already have the amount they can spend laid out though. Whether they buy 200 H-60s or 100 -47s, the amount is fixed, so Im guessing they will buy what they want in fewer numbers, instead of large fleets of what they already have and dont want.

If the USAF always jumped on the cheapest thing regardless of capability we would have Combat Cessna 172s in the hundreds of thousands.

LOL. Well given USAF Inc. resent purchases of fighters they will wait for HLH cause it will be bigger and better. Or immediately announce a study for the next CSAR aircraft before they even get through LRIP on whatever they elect to get this time.

 

[Triton]

Looks like the H-47 and the V-22 are out of the competition:

"Boeing, Bell Helicopter also opting out of U.S. Air Force contest"

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-boeing-helicopter-idUSBRE8BA15420121211

(Reuters) - Boeing Co said on Tuesday it would not submit bids based on its H-47 helicopter or the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft built with Textron Inc's Bell Helicopter unit for a U.S. Air Force competition for 112 new combat rescue helicopters.

Boeing spokesman Damien Mills said the H-47 Chinook and the V-22 "Osprey" had been proven to be the world's most capable and cost-effective search and rescue aircraft, but their capabilities exceeded the parameters of the Air Force contest.

"While the Chinook and Osprey exceed the parameters of the USAF's Combat Rescue Helicopter program, they are often the go-to aircraft for the U.S. Army, Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command when needing to extract personnel from dangerous situations," Mills said.

He said the two aircraft had been used to save lives in conditions where other aircraft could not operate.

Boeing's decision follows a similar announcement by Northrop Grumman Corp earlier Tuesday.

 

[Triton]

Looks like it will be the Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk!

"Sikorsky, Lockheed Left Alone on USAF CSAR Helo"
by Reuters
December 11, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_11_2012_p0-527012.xml

Boeing, EADS and Northrop Grumman and their major partners have all decided not to bid for a multibillion dollar contract to build 112 new combat search and rescue helicopters for the U.S. Air Force.

The decision seems to leave Sikorsky and partner Lockheed Martin as the lone bidder and presumably winner.

Northrop, which teamed up with Finmeccanica’s AgustaWestland in September to bid for the revised rescue helicopter contract and a separate U.S. Navy competition for a new presidential helicopter, said the decision would not affect the team’s pursuit of the second program.

Northrop spokeswoman Margaret Mitchell-Jones said Dec. 11 that the two companies decided to skip the Air Force competition after a thorough analysis of the service’s final request for proposals, or RFP, which was published in October. Bids are due Jan. 3.

“We’ve reached this conclusion based on an extensive evaluation of customer requirements under the current RFP,” Mitchell-Jones said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Boeing also said Dec. 11 it would not submit bids based on its H-47 helicopter or the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft built with Textron’s Bell Helicopter unit for the new combat rescue helicopter.

Boeing spokesman Damien Mills said the H-47 Chinook and the V-22 “Osprey” had been proven to be the world’s most capable and cost-effective search and rescue aircraft, but their capabilities exceeded the parameters of the Air Force contest.

“While the Chinook and Osprey exceed the parameters of the USAF’s Combat Rescue Helicopter program, they are often the go-to aircraft for the U.S. Army, Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command when needing to extract personnel from dangerous situations,” Mills said.

He said the two aircraft had been used to save lives in conditions where other aircraft could not operate.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Looks like the H-47 and the V-22 are out of the competition:

"Boeing, Bell Helicopter also opting out of U.S. Air Force contest"

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-boeing-helicopter-idUSBRE8BA15420121211

(Reuters) - Boeing Co said on Tuesday it would not submit bids based on its H-47 helicopter or the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft built with Textron Inc's Bell Helicopter unit for a U.S. Air Force competition for 112 new combat rescue helicopters.

Boeing spokesman Damien Mills said the H-47 Chinook and the V-22 "Osprey" had been proven to be the world's most capable and cost-effective search and rescue aircraft, but their capabilities exceeded the parameters of the Air Force contest.

"While the Chinook and Osprey exceed the parameters of the USAF's Combat Rescue Helicopter program, they are often the go-to aircraft for the U.S. Army, Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command when needing to extract personnel from dangerous situations," Mills said.

He said the two aircraft had been used to save lives in conditions where other aircraft could not operate.

Boeing's decision follows a similar announcement by Northrop Grumman Corp earlier Tuesday.

Guess it won't be the -47. Is everyone bailing on this or what? Answer: Yes except sikorsky.

 

[jsport]

lone bidder, that will automatically yield the best result.

 

[Triton]

Hmmm... looks like the United States Air Force RFP was written to favor the Sikorsky HH-60M CSAR.
I thought that the HH-60 was originally rejected as being too small for the CSAR mission for the USAF?

"CSAR-X to CRH -- Then There Was One"
Posted by Graham Warwick 10:01 AM on Dec 12, 2012

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1b142d10-e0a8-4d0e-a221-3da1c409e6d1

Protesting pays. That's one lesson that could be drawn from U.S. Air Force efforts to competitively procure replacements for its Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawk combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) helicopters.

Boeing, Bell Boeing, EADS North America, and Northrop Grumman teamed with AgustaWestland, have all decided not to bid for the Air Force's 112-aircraft, $6.85 billion Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program after analyzing the request for proposals. That leaves Sikorsky, teamed with Lockheed Martin, as the only bidder.

It was Sikorsky and Lockheed, then competing separately, that successfully protested the November 2006 award of the CSAR-X contract to Boeing and the HH-47 Chinook, leading to cancellation of the 141-aircraft, $10 billion program in November 2009. CSAR-X was due to achieve initial operational capability right around now.

This time around, Sikorsky and Lockheed are expected to offer the HH-60M CSAR version of the Army's UH-60M Black Hawk, which the Air Force has already purchased in small numbers to top up its Pave Hawk fleet. In the CSAR-X days, the HH-60 was judged too small for the mission and Sikorsky instead offered the H-92.

After the cancellation of CSAR-X, the Air Force floated the idea of a directed purchase of HH-60Ms to recapitalize the Pave Hawk fleet, but was shot down. So instead it came up with the CRH competition, which looks to be closely modeled on the restaged KC-X tanker contest.

The revised KC-X program sought to avoid the protests that sank the original competition by strictly limiting the credits available for exceeding the baseline requirements. This turned the contest on its head. Where the larger Airbus A330-based KC-45 won the first round, the smaller Boeing 767-based KC-46 won the rematch.

The same appears to have happened with CRH. Where the CSAR-X competition allowed Boeing to score highly with its larger, more capable, but more expensive HH-47, the CRH RFP sets out source-selection criteria that give little or no credit for exceeding the baseline requirements.

For Boeing with the CH-47, Bell Boeing with the V-22 Osprey and Northrop with AgustaWestland's AW101 there was no incentive to offer a rotorcraft with any capability more than the minimum set out in the RFP. The same likely applies to EADS, which was looking at offering the EC725 or NH90.

What procurement watchers will make of this, I'm not sure. There will be no competition, unless someone comes out of the woodwork, but the Air Force should still get the cheapest combat-rescue helicopter out there, if only because the HH-60M already exists. But it is also the smallest.

And if someone can calculate the amount of money the Air Force has spent getting to this point, I would like to hear from them.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

lone bidder, that will automatically yield the best result.

Sole sourcing!!! CALL THE CANADIAN PRESS!!

I don't know about Best result, but certainly the highest price? ;D

 

[TomS]

The RFP has a hard limit on the bid price, which is why there is only one bid. An honestly priced H-47, V-22, or EH101 offer wasn't going to come in under the limit, no matter how much competition there was.

 

[yasotay]

As predicted.


USAF Inc. wanted H-60.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As predicted.


USAF Inc. wanted H-60.

Ya you win

 

[Triton]

As predicted.


USAF Inc. wanted H-60.

So was there really a USAF Combat Rescue Helicopter competition if manufacturers withdraw their bids and the RFP is written in such a way to favor a particular manufacturer/product?

 

[yasotay]

A fair and GAO supported competition...
They want a new helicopter, but they only want to spend ~$25M per base airframe. USAF Inc. is not going to spend political capitol on a mere helicopter when it is in need of a new bomber and yet another new fighter.
If you recall USAF Inc. wanted to pile onto the US Army H-60 buy, but got told that was a no go. H-47 tainted by original program. V-22 to controversial, AW-101 tainted by Presidential helo. Remember that the people making the decisions (hint not USAF people) don't have a clue about helicopters but are loathe of controversy.
What the Mandarins want is a program that they can't get blamed for.

 

[2IDSGT]

Well, they may as well skew the rules in favor of the smallest/cheapest platform. After all, if a USAF pilot is down, they'll most likely just have the Marines go get him/her anyways.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well, they may as well skew the rules in favor of the smallest/cheapest platform. After all, if a USAF pilot is down, they'll most likely just have the Marines go get him/her anyways.

Nice B)

 

[Triton]

"New combat rescue helicopter HH-60W to perform personnel recovery mission"
by Daryl Mayer, 88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs / Published November 29, 2014

Source:
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/555136/new-combat-rescue-helicopter-hh-60w-to-perform-personnel-recovery-mission.aspx

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, Ohio (AFNS) -- The Air Force has officially designated the new combat rescue helicopter (CRH) as the HH-60W.

The need to acquire a new personnel recovery capability resulted in the June 2014 contract award to Sikorsky for eventual production and fielding of up to 112 aircraft with a potential value of approximately $7.9 billion.

"The formal designation of HH-60W for the Combat Rescue Helicopter is a significant step in the process for replacing the Air Force’s personnel recovery fleet of aging HH-60G helicopters," said Col. Michael J. Schmidt, the program executive officer for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and special operations forces. "The CRH program office is working hard to provide our warfighters the capability they require to continue to conduct the critical (personnel recovery) mission far into the future."

Under the management of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Sikorsky will develop a derivative of the UH-60M Black Hawk model for the Air Force's rescue mission. Like the UH-60M helicopter, the aircraft will feature T700-GE-701D engines, composite wide-chord main rotor blades, and fatigue- and corrosion-resistant machined aero-structures to sustain maneuverability at high-density altitudes. The aircraft will feature increased internal fuel capability, compared with today's HH-60G helicopter, thereby giving the HH-60W the required range, while increasing its internal cabin space.

The HH-60W, referred to as the 60-Whiskey, will replace HH-60G Pave Hawks which began service in 1982. The official name of the HH-60W will be determined at a later date.

"Successful execution of the combat rescue helicopter program is essential to meet the continued demanding personnel recovery mission in today's challenging operational environment," said J. David Schairbaum, the combat rescue helicopter system program manager. "The CRH program office is working closely with Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation to ensure the newly designated HH-60W is delivered to the warfighter on schedule and within cost."

Using a tested platform already in production and integrating features currently in use on other aircraft will help control risk according to program officials. The next major step, system requirements review, is scheduled for fiscal 2015, and initial deliveries are expected to begin in fiscal 2019.

 

[fightingirish]

The HH-60W, referred to as the 60-Whiskey, will replace HH-60G Pave Hawks which began service in 1982. The official name of the HH-60W will be determined at a later date.

After watching the videos about the history of Sikorsky's Black Hawk, I propose in my humble opinion, that the HH-60W should get the official name "Warrior Hawk". This name fits well with history and missions of the Sikorsky's helicopters within the US Armed Forces.

 

[Triton]

After watching the videos about the history of Sikorsky's Black Hawk, I propose in my humble opinion, that the HH-60W should get the official name "Warrior Hawk". This name fits well with history and missions of the Sikorsky's helicopters within the US Armed Forces.

Perhaps, but I believe that the name Warrior Hawk is too close to Battle Hawk. Maybe it would be more apt to name the new helicopter for United States Air Force Pararescue operators? Sikorsky HH-60W Guardian Angel? Sikorsky HH-60W Rescue Ranger?

 

[Stargazer]

Perhaps, but I believe that the name Warrior Hawk is too close to Battle Hawk. Maybe it would be more apt to name the new helicopter for United States Air Force Pararescue operators? Sikorsky HH-60W Guardian Angel? Sikorsky HH-60W Rescue Ranger?

I concur. Warrior Hawk is a great sounding name for a dedicated combat helicopter, not for a rescue one!!!

However, since Sikorsky and the military have consistently kept the basic name Hawk throughout the H-60 series (Black Hawk, Seahawk, Jayhawk, Pave Hawk, Knight Hawk, Battlehawk, Firehawk) I think Rescue Hawk would best fit the bill.

 

[fightingirish]

Skyblazer, the HH-60H Seahawk for US Navy, now mostly replaced by the MH-60S, has been called "Rescue Hawk".

Still, without any offence to other name proposals, my name proposal "Warrior Hawk" suits better to the Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter HH-60W.
First the same letter "W" (double-u), then this is an helicopter flying into combat.
I also think that the airmen and airwomen flying the HH-60W, especially the Pararescuemen (PJs) and the Combat Rescue Officers are real warriors and not only medics.

Maybe I should write an email with my name proposal to my "Namensvetter" (english: namesake) Col. Michael J. Schmidt, the program executive officer for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and special operations forces.

Edit:

[...]What the Pentagon bills as the US Air Force’s new Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) – and critics call old wine in new bottles – now has a military designation. The CRH is now designated the HH-60W and troops are calling it the ‘Sixty Whisky’. Sikorsky has received initial contracts as part of a $7.9 billion programme for 112 airframes to replace the HH-60G Pave Hawk. [...]

Source: Air International - April 2015 - page 16

I rest my case and leave it to the US troops to call their new combat rescue helicopter '60 Whisky'.

 

[Grey Havoc]

By the way, shouldn't this topic be in Aerospace?

 

[fightingirish]

ANALYSIS: Pave Hawk replacement finally beckons for US Air Force