Its time to ask difficult question with regard to continued development of the CH-53K Heavy Lift Helicopter. Before we get started let me state up front that I'm a fan of the current CH-53E and the concept for the CH-53K was a no brainer.
Before the Marine Corps sold its sold for the F-35B and the MV-22.
Now? I have to ask out loud what does the CH-53K bring that can't be done with MH-60M's or even marinized CH-47's...both are much cheaper and in the case of the MH-60M would give added flexibility while conducting heliborne assaults.
The research and development money in the budget just passed by congress could get us our full buy of Marine Personnel Carriers today. Not in ten years. So I ask again.
Does continued development of the CH-53K make sense?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei contend that if you're really talking about doing a artillery raid by flying in M777's by helicopter then you're smoking crack. i contend that if you're talking about flying in a LAV-25 by helicopter then you need to be committed to the nearest psychiatric hospital. i further contend that if our way of warfare demands that cargo be moved by large size helicopters then spell it out but i haven't really heard it yet. quite honestly (and i hate to admit this) but the experimental program of using robot helicopters in Afghanistan showed the truth. most cargo is relatively light, its just going to be delivered to widely dispersed locations. so i ask again. what does the CH-53K bring to the table that other smaller and cheaper helicopters doesnt'? the answer is not a thing. the real deal is that the Marine Corps wants a backstop to the MV-22 that can fly fast and far as an ordinary helicopter, lift heavy loads or deliver a shit load of troops into tight landing zones.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSol,
DeleteI think your going to see 10th Marines really bring back the Arty Raid. It may just be rumor but i would'nt be surprise if you start seeing the 53's out of New River flying around with 777's and Gun Bunnies ready to sling some lanyards. Arty has to show its flexable, fast and more importantly still has a role to play in the shifting times, and only one bird can carry them, their crew, and their ammo.
Also, the 53 bring rugged capabilities. Doing Raids in the 53 means we're bringing a Plt ++ in just two birds, and a Company - in a division and thats with room to spare just what we brought...and i never had that "what if they breakdown" feeling with the 53, its not a osprey a rock isnt going to down the bird, and with the ability to carry more weight means we can look at armoring this thing up for future operations where a raid force knows its going to come under fire.
just some thoughts from me.
-John
I do think the USN should have built larger carriers to accommodate bigger planes with longer combat radius's and payloads, IMO current US fighter development is shamefull, what is needed now (given all the long range missiles) is super-cruising (mach2+) planes with large combat radius's, think 2,000KM+ on internal fuel.
ReplyDeleteThink super-cruising bombers dropping powered derivatives of SDBIIs, JDAM-ERs 120-200KM+ away, well, well out of range of most SAMS (and the ones with lots of rounds), deep inland/across sea and from a distance far out of range of enemy fighters.
There should be no sacred cows and ALL weapon systems need to be evaluated.
ReplyDeletehttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-nuclear-missiles-are-force-much-distress
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletevery good writeup.
DeleteI never said we need total disarmament but I think we need to realistically see what we are getting out of our ICBM force, especially when you look at the problems inside it and I do feel we need to get rid of the nuclear bomber business. Personally, I would just keep 8 to 10 boomers. We spend between 60 to 80 billion dollars on nukes in this country (depending on how who you ask and all the different services and organizations involved), that's not chump change anymore....
ReplyDeleteIf we want to buy weapons we are likely to use like the -53K, JSF, LCS or MV22, we have to put everything on table and look for efficiencies....the days of just buying whatever the Pentagon wants are fading away fast....
Not only we need to find more efficiencies, we need to figure out how to do the ICBM mission for the coming years, we are only about 15 years removed from the Cold War and look how bad morale and retention are, you really believe this is going to get better??? Are you kidding me guys, it will only get worse!!! We need to come up with some solutions FAST before the mission becomes irrelevant or falls apart from the inside!
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine how bad morale is going to be in 15,30, 50 years??? When we are still using Minutemen III??? Yeah, working on a mission that gets ZERO importance anywhere and keeping an eye on antics is going to be real popular in 30 years.....
I think 60-80 billion is a fat number. the ap news article says 18=4%billion a year with communications included. They are counting the price of the subs, bombers,sensors data networks that conventional forces also rely on to make it look for expensive than it really is
DeleteWe should develop an attack sub that can horizontally fire quad packed torpedoes and cruise missiles and/or 5-10 tridents. Load the ones they don't want on deterrence patrols with quad packed cruise missiles and torpedoes and have 60 attack/boomers lol.
But the ICBMs are important too. Subs and ICBMs work together making sure we cant be checkmated in the opening move. I got pissed when they retired MX. Now they rarely use the minotaur rockets
Morale? people fail to see the importance and therefore don't appreciate what they do and there is the anti nuke folks that pull media stunts.
CH-47's can lift and move M777's. So for Arty Raids there is already a bird in the inventory that is cheaper than the 53K.
ReplyDeleteThe Army used to have a heavy lift helicopter, the Sikorsky SkyCrane. When we stopped using that airframe we somehow muddled along just fine without heavy lift capabilities in the Army. When you are talking arty raids, the old 105s were enough to fulfil that role, and the limited max range not so much of an issue when you can fly them to firing positions quickly. Now the M777s give the "flying artillery" some real punch for long distance assistance, and capable of moving under Chinooks.
I submit three points for consideration.
ReplyDelete1. So-called 'flying artillery' missions are technologically obsolete. Modern 'artillery missiles' have effectively removed the need to ferry batteries of artillery around by air. The former can be launched from land, sea or air platforms at ranges varying from a few miles (e.g. Rafael's Spike NLOS) to hundreds of miles (e.g Tomahawk TLAM land attack variant). I'm not sure that artillery mobility, in and of itself, is a valid justification for a heavy-lift helicopter (although as one out of many possible missions, it certainly has its place in the calculus).
2. Survivability is an important consideration for an essential platform. If one comes to the point of relying so much on a single system that without it, one's mission becomes impossible, I suggest it's time to reconsider either the mission or the weapons system. I fear that if the USMC relies on a small number of large helicopters to move its troops and assets around, attrition among those helicopters - even without troops and equipment aboard - will render it immobile and useless. If its people and gear are aboard the helicopters when they're targeted, that will be even worse, because a single loss will take out up to half a company. Two or three such losses and an entire battalion's mission may be compromised. Spreading the load over a larger number of smaller, lower-capacity helicopters makes sense from that perspective.
3. That said, there will always be a need for heavy-lift helicopters. They'll have to haul heavy loads into and out of firebases, recover downed aircraft, ferry large quantities of supplies, etc. They do have essential missions that can't be performed by anything else. My fear is that they'll be used to replace large numbers of smaller helicopters on the grounds of economy. I can just see some bean-counter saying, "Well, we can lift 100,000 ration packs in twenty of these small birds, or five of these big ones - so let's can the twenty small ones, with their maintenance and crew overhead, and invest in the bigger, more productive platforms". Unfortunately, as pointed out above, this can be counterproductive in a combat environment when you can't afford to lose those bigger platforms. A balance has to be struck between quantity and quality. Just as the F-35 is likely to soak up the USMC's budget for other items, the CH-53K is likely to absorb much of what's available to buy helicopters. That might come back to bite future Marines in the ass on the battlefield.
Just my $0.02 worth . . .
I'll reply to Peter's point 1.
ReplyDeleteMissile cost a lot. If you are going to drop a missile on something you need to factor in the cost of the missile. I have never seen a missile used on a soft mobile target. I have seen arty sling loaded to support infantry.
Missiles are awesome, but they come with some logistical and economic costs that artillery don't have to deal with. Which is why on my last deployment we fired the M777s routinely, and didn't fire a single GMLR despite looking for targets all across the battlefield that could be approved for a missile strike.
I got to fire lots of GMLRs. It was awesome. Also fired unguided M795 but that depended on the target.
DeleteWe only moved the M777s by air because we did not want to risk one on the IED filled roads. Otherwise we could have driven them.
The CH-53K looks to be a great "nice to have" platform. A Helo that can carry more is always welcome.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what I would rather see is new builds of upgraded CH-53E specs. The 32,000lb weight lift of the CH-53E is acceptable. When the 53Es were new they used to carry around LAV-25s with crew. The biggest problems with the 53E is that it is old. Just plain old. We do not need the extra max weight, we need something that can lift what the Echoes were supposed to lift.