The USAF has a problem. It has found the HH-60 it flies too small and short legged for the air rescue mission and desperately needs a replacement. To add to the services woes, AFSOC is making a play for the mission stating that its CV-22's can perform the mission better.
The Air Force is resisting the idea, I believe, because placing the mission in SOCOM hands would mean that at critical times the required assets might be off doing other missions. They have a point. That would mean that in the future long over water recovery would necessarily fall to Marine or Navy aircraft. Over land recovery would be hampered by SOCOMs solution of having HH-60s in the reserves do the mission.
The fly in the ointment is that other helicopters also lack the range that the USAF requires.
The answer is to climb aboard the Marine Corps CH-53K program and sole source the selection. Stats via Wikipedia.
General characteristics
- Crew: 5: 2 pilots, 1 crew chief/right gunner, 1 left gunner, 1 tail gunner (combat crew)
- Capacity: 37 troops (55 with centerline seats installed)
- Payload: * 35,000 lb (15,900 kg)
- Length: 99 ft 1/2 in (30.2 m)
- Rotor diameter: 79 ft (24 m)
- Height: 27 ft 9 in (8.46 m)
- Disc area: 4,900 ft² (460 m²)
- Empty weight: 33,226 lb (15,071 kg)
- Loaded weight: 74,000 lb (33,600 kg)
- Max. takeoff weight: * 84,700 lb (38,400 kg)
- Powerplant: 3 × *General Electric GE38-1B turboshaft, * 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) each
Performance
- Rotor systems: 7 blades on main rotor, 4 blades on tail rotor
- Cruise speed: * 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h)
- Range: * 454 nmi (841 km) no reserves
- Combat radius: * 110 nmi (126 mi, 204 km)
- Service ceiling: * 14,400 ft (4,380 m)
Armament
- Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (13 m/s)
- Guns: ** 2 window-mounted .50 BMG (12.7 mm) M3M/GAU-21 machine guns
- 1 ramp-mounted .50 BMG (12.7 mm) M3M/GAU-21 machine gun
Before you think I'm going soft on the Marine Corps aviation budget I haven't. I have massive heartburn at the thought of a helicopter costing 84 million dollars each. That's damn near the cost of a fighter! But it will have the required range (and if it receives modifications like the enlarged sponsons on the MH-53E it could be extended further---and that's before you add in aerial refueling), will have 3 machineguns to provide area suppression and all the defensive aids the Air Force can stuff into it. Quite honestly it'll add in a capability the Para-Rescue hasn't had since the MH-53J retired.
Why bother with an unproven, expensive solution when they could have the HH-47 sooner, for a lot less?
ReplyDeletebecause its not marinized for shipboard operations .
DeleteIt had a degree of marinization. How much does it need? It is a USAF aircraft after all.
DeleteIIRC the full up HH-47 was supposed to be less than $70 million each, and that's with the terrain following radar, and all of the CSAR kit.
How much more will an HH-53K cost with all of that added?
i have no idea on the costs. it was just a proposal i threw out there. but i imagine that a rescue version setup as a deep penetrator would be over 100m. still, you can bet that the CV-22 would lose missions to it and you'd see regular AF units getting the call from SOCOM so it could endup being a cost multiplier.
DeleteThe CV-22 would lose CSAR missions to an HH-47 as well.
DeleteOperating costs would be a lot higher with the CH-53K compared to the HH-47 as well.
ReplyDeleteyou base that on what? supposedly the design is to have lower operating costs than the legacy platform so i find that a specious statement.
DeleteOperating costs for the CH-53K are unknown. Historically H-53s have cost more to operate than H-47s (larger, three engines vs two, etc)
DeleteSo while not 'specious', it is difficult to know for sure what the difference will be.
I'll tell you right now, every little moving part on an Aircraft can add up. Not only is the CH-53K much larger than the Chinni but like said above it has 3 engines vs 2 as well as blade fold and tail fold systems which increases maintenance costs over the simple Chinook design. Even the fact that the CH47 has a fixed landing gear vs a retracting tricycle landing gear on the 53K adds up.
ReplyDeleteWe need a semi-stealthy platform for conducting COMBAT(!) SAR missions. CH-53K and Chinook are sitting ducks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Solomon,this is the perfect platform for CSAR...
ReplyDeleteEarlier versions performed well so the more powerfull K should be a monster...
And stop this stealth nonsense...the biggest treath to this mission are heavy MGs ,cannons and MANPADS...steath does not help with this...in fact that would mean more expensive helicopter with more maintenance...and less available to rescue pilots.
What about the "stealth" Black Hawks involved in bin Laden's raid? We can apply the same technology to CSAR bird, regardless of the actual airframe. A non-stealthy helicopter operating deep inside enemy territory is a bad omen.
ReplyDeleteThat were suported by regular MH-47...you dont need stealth when you are flying nap-of-the-earth...you need armour and defensive weapons
DeleteFrom wikipedia:«In May 2011, four U.S. military helicopters evaded the Pakistani air defense system during the Osama bin Laden mission. Officials in Pakistan attributed the failure to detect the aircraft to their use of nap-of-the-earth flying techniques.[2]»
Why have we given up on airborne jammers? Was moving to 100% stealth really worth it? How come the Marines are giving up on their Prowlers in favor of nothing? Oh, right, the F-35. How come the Air Force just outright refuses to get together a long missed replacement for the Raven? Oh, right, the F-35 and the F-22. How come the Marines had an "amphibious assault" ship biuilt with no well dock? Oh, right, the F-35 and the V-22.
ReplyDeleteAll this worship of tech voodoo (stealthiness, tilts, RMA, PGS, UAV, etc.) has proven to be a bane on the United States military in the last decade. Give it up, you were wrong, repent.