A quickie here.
A modest proposal.
Cancel the CH-53K and Marinize the MH-47 (without penetration avionics but keep the increased fuel carriage and refueling capability) for Marine Corps use.
Its simple. The US Army and Marine Corps would operate the same heavy lift helicopter, could fall on similar supply lines and would push down the price because of increased buys of the vehicle.
I don't say this lightly because I'm a huge fan of Sikorsky, but we can't afford a 115 million dollar heavy lift helicopter (according to Wikipedia that's the cost with R&D mixed in...84 million without).
Yeah. My budget cutting, money saving hat is on.
A Marine would know why this is a terrible idea.
ReplyDeleteexplain it to me.
DeleteYou really don't know? Its not painfully obvious? And you call yourself a Marine?
DeleteAlso don't use numbers from wikipedia, they are usually flat wrong
uh. wow. a certified troll.
DeleteIts obviously a bad idea, and you should know why.
ReplyDeleteThe RAF is getting some new Chinooks. I have been joking over at Think Defence that they could form a RN Cooperation (Heavy) Squadron for CVF. The idea being not so much regular deployments aboard CVF more than the squadron is familiar with the ship so if there is ever a need for a number of Chinook to work from CVF's deck it won't be much of a shock to the system. Of course before now RAF Chinook have operated successfully from the Invincibles and Ocean. But I see more as a step up from that seeing as Chinook can be hangered aboard CVF. I tm thinking of say trying to operate approximately 8. I foresee CVF spending a lot of time working in support of USN and USMC. It is logical as they will complement your larger amphibians and should in theory fly the same FJ. So I don't think your idea is without merit. But if I could have a squadron of Kilos for the FAA I would. :)
ReplyDeletedon't get me wrong. i absolutely LOVE THE CH-53K.
Deletebut we're living in times of economic distress. I forgot who SUGGESTED this idea...cause i shot him down more than a couple of times but money is tight an preconceived notions have to be left behind. if we can piggyback off the Army buy and get them cheap then we should at least consider it.
Dude, I know exactly what youre saying and why you saying it. :)
DeleteHave a look at this about 1 min 27 secs onward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9NGLvc7eLM
Who is posting under Solomon's name??
DeleteFlash back -
Me: Sharing the basic core vehicles could have saved a fortune.
Solomon: also the talk about sharing airframes across services is a cluster.
Who are you really? I guess it moot to point out both that both the British and the Australians use H-47 at sea on much smaller vessels than any US LHA/LHD.
As for the parking issues brought up below, the H-47 has rear wheel steering, so you push the nose over the edge not the tail. The nearly 18 feet in front of the main gear is over the edge of the ship. With 34 feet over the deck.
I'm with you there, Harlan.
DeleteMy proposal a few years back was to move the existing MV-22s to a common, service-wide pool, and cancel the remaining. Buy a mix of MH-60Ss and navalized H-47s for the Marines.
By spot factors, in the same space as 10 x MV-22s (SF 1.73) and 4 x CH-53Ks (SF 1.95), you could fit 12 x MH-60Ss (SF .65) and 14 x H-47s (SF 1.22).
The Marines lack a handy, medium lifter like the H-60. The UH-1Y is an option, but sharing commonality with every other service takes higher priority, IMHO.
Plus, the MH-60Ss could perform CAS, ASuW, and MIW, with kit already developed (or in development) for the Navy. If the MH-60S proves too small for MIW, maybe the H-47 could become the primary AMCM aircraft.
Heres a hint: Have you ever been aboard a Navy ship with aircraft?
ReplyDeleteQuit being a douche and just explain yourself already.
DeleteI think he is talking about the airframe being navalised. As about 99% of us who comment here know the sea isn't a benign environment. I think is he saying the cost of naval-ising would outweigh any savings.
DeleteAmong other things yes.
DeleteAnd anonymous, I'm sorry I really don't want to explain myself, because it then gives Sol another nugget of knowledge that will aid in his false claims of being a US Marine. I'm not in the business of helping people who claim to be Marines, insult my Corps, and then come up with 13 year old level ideas like this one that nay real Marine would know can't work for Naval operations.
http://www.combatreform.org/USARMYAVIATIONDIGEST/superchinook.htm
ReplyDeleteSounds like a good idea but you probably wouldn't save a whole lot of money on the buy because the mods needed for USMC use might bring it to the same price as a -53K. You need to marinize airframe and engines, folding blades, etc...plus whatever differences the USMC needs compared to US Army. New spare parts chain, training,etc...I doubt you would save a lot of money.
from what i know of the CH-47 it has a sealed hull so it inherently has a degree of marinization built in. the problem will be getting it past NAVAIR. the issue with the SEA APACHE was that by the time they got a model that met ship board use requirements it turned into something entirely (with a big help from changing requirements from the Marines who wanted a sea search radar and the ability to launch harpoons)....but despite all that it should be researched to see if its viable.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhen I was stationed at Schofield, National Guard would operate CH47s over the ocean so it is feasible but you do have to take a lot of precautions afterwards and operating constantly at sea is a different animal... I am sure it is feasible but not sure you would save a lot of money...
ReplyDeleteHow much more of a deck-spot-size does this have than the old 46?
ReplyDeleteUsing square fuselage dimensions, the MH-47 is about 22% larger than the CH-46 (spot factor of 1.22, relative to the CH-46). This assumes an H-47 folding rotor system that doesn't go outside the width or length of the fuselage. Though, I imagine you can sometimes pack the CH-46 a bit tighter than the full width of its sponsons.
DeleteBy comparison, I've seen spot factors for the V-22 and CH-53K of 1.73 (non-maintenance) and 1.95, respectively.
YMMV, with these numbers though. Various factors can impact the overall spot factor used for planning purposes. For instance, deck spot factor for the V-22 is lower if it can hang its tail over the edge of the deck, but MUCH higher when in maintenance mode in the hangar.
A very logical idea. All over the world, army's use their CH-47 to transport men and equipment from ships. Koreans, Australians, Singaporeans, British, Dutch, Spanish, Greeks, Italians use CH-47 to do the above. The USMC must do the same. As a matter of fact the USMC must do more to reduce the problem of different machines doing the exact same, for different branch of US armed forces. The same must be done by the other branches.
ReplyDeleteNo more "logical" than insisting the US Army cancel the Chinook program and go with the CH-53K. Different missions and requirements entirely. Trying to "modify" the Chinook to take the CH-53K's role would effectively make it an entirely new aircraft. Lots of time and money flushed down the toilet only so you can spend it all over again on the CH-47. This topic has LOL written all over it.
DeletePlus it can't do Marine Corps missions. Why would we buy something we can't use, and how does that "save" us anything? It should be really obvious. The fact that it isn't makes me question this blog authors background claims.
DeleteAgain, A Marine would know why this isn't feasible at first glance.
This would kill the 53 program and once Boeing knows it is sole source supplier for US military what 'boeing' tax would they apply. Just look at the cost of the initial air tanker bid for the USAF. Once they have all the cards, I'm not sure there'll be much savings.
ReplyDeleteYet another dumb idea from this blog. If it could be done, the CH-47 would already be marinized. Do you have any idea what it would take to marinize the Chinook? Can it fit below decks for maintenance or bad weather? No! Could that ever be possible? No! Simple things like where the fuel enters the helicopter - it's on the wrong side! How about this - cancel the CH-47 upgrade and make them buy CH-53Ks! It will be a much more capable helicopter, and it is designed to go aboard ship. By virtue of the fact that the CH-53 series has been designed to operate aboard ships, it is much more relevant. Just ask Scott O'Grady!
ReplyDeleteDing ding ding!! We have a winner!! Even the landing gear configuration means it takes up more space, you can't hang the back end of the deck like you can a -53 either. There is no way to fold it besides the rotor blades. Its just a giant damn brick.
Deletevery obvious if you have served...
CH-53E folded height - 18 feet 7 inches
DeleteCH-47 overall height - 18 feet 11 inches
Four inches difference. (IIRC, LHA lower hangar height - ~21 feet)
CH-53E unfolded fuselage length - 73 feet 4 inches
CH-47F overall fuselage length - 52 feet
The CH-53E fuselage is over twenty feet longer. In fact, the CH-47 fuselage is 8 feet shorter than the folded CH-53E.
Fuel entry point would have to be re-plumbed. Granted.
Some marinization has been done for other programs. More would be required to meet Navy and Marine needs.
Its the landing gear too...
Deletehttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_030623-N-1512S-493_A_CH-53E_Super_Stallion_is_moved_from_the_Hangar_Bay_to_the_flight_deck_using_the_starboard_elevator_aboard_USS_Kearsarge_(LHD_3).jpg
So being 8 feet shorter folded doesn't mean squat when the -53 can hang an additional 40 percent over the deck and fit on an elevator. When you find a way to do that with a -47, or if you find a way to fold it in half let me know, and I'll change my opinion on the "marinized" -47. It will be harder to haul around the deck too with the wider (and more numerous) wheel base. Without angled decks and more room LHDs (and other gator ships) are all extremely volume sensitive.
DeleteIts really simple. It fits on the ship for regular operation, or it doesn't. If the Marines are land based, and just Army Jr, lets get them. If the Marines are a maritime force, get 53Ks because chinooks won't work.
Merging the Army and Marines would probably also save money, but I wouldn't advise it. Accountants can tell you the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
http://webtekdemo.com/Z_Pub_PMK%20Data%20Base/Occupational_DataBase_Pubs/NAVAIR%2000-80T-106.pdf (H-40)
Delete"H.3.2.10 Fit on LHA Elevator
A spread CH/MH-47D/E helicopter will not fit on either the port or aft LHA elevator. A single CH/MH-47D/E helicopter in the 5-blade fold configuration will fit on the port elevator but not on the aft elevator. To fit on the aft elevator requires the refueling probe (if installed) to be removed, the forward blade removed or folded, and the remaining five blades folded or removed.
H.3.2.11 Fit on LHD Elevator
A spread CH/MH-47D/E helicopter will not fit on a LHD elevator. One or two CH/MH-47D/E helicopters in the 5 blade fold configuration will fit on a LHD elevator (total weight must be below 75,000 lbs.)."
So all six blades need to be folded (presumably an auto-fold system would address this), and a fully retractable refueling probe would be needed (if necessary).
Additionally some changes to the landing gear may be needed to facilitate shipboard handling as well as rotor brakes and anti-flap device.