View Full Version : Marine Corps Chinooks?
Don't know that much about helicopters but it would seem that Marinizing the CH-47 would be more expensive that what it's worth:
"On Dec. 18, Bloomberg reported that Pentagon officials are considering reducing the number of Marine Corps CH-53K King Stallion heavy-lift helicopters and replacing them with modified Army CH-47F Chinook medium-lift helicopters."
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/03/replacing-us-marines-ch-53k-helos-with-ch-47f-choppers-is-a-poor-idea/
The good idea fairy strikes again. The K has a payload capacity of 35,000 lbs; the Chinook F, 22,000 lbs.
It is true the K has had issues getting off the ground (figuratively) and some growing pains, but for the Marines it is the superior aircraft. The CH-53 is an excellent platform. It is a worthy fight to keep it vice getting CH-47s.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-04-20, 07:57
CH46ish?
CH46ish?
Sort of, only bigger.
just a scout
02-04-20, 08:20
The good idea fairy strikes again. The K has a payload capacity of 35,000 lbs; the Chinook F, 22,000 lbs.
It is true the K has had issues getting off the ground (figuratively) and some growing pains, but for the Marines it is the superior aircraft. The CH-53 is an excellent platform. It is a worthy fight to keep it vice getting CH-47s.
The biggest issue with the K is the price. $135 mil per bird. The 47 can be had MOTS in a navalised version. It’s what the Australians and New Zealand use. And I think UK.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The biggest issue with the K is the price. $135 mil per bird. The 47 can be had MOTS in a navalised version. It’s what the Australians and New Zealand use. And I think UK.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yeah, not too hard to "navalize" it. The issue will be the payload. They are phasing out the -46s, which have same capacity as the -47. I will surprised if they drop the K variant completely.
Other than the price I think the problem with the 53K is it holds too many eggs, combat loss and you lose all your eggs, distribute the eggs between two 47's and combat loss of one you only lose half your eggs. Plus there is the fact that:
Boeing CH-47F Chinook
Current Price $ 25.1 million to - $ 32 million U.S.
Lawnchair 04
02-04-20, 12:33
We are limited to carrying 24 pax to avoid combat loss. Need CO authority to pack the plane full. That’s for the 53E. Currently the 53E is also limited to 21-22k external load capacity (speaking real world not book numbers), and that’s early morning lifts and stripping the aircraft of unneeded weight ie auxiliary fuel tanks. I love the big iron and can’t wait to turn wrenches on the new king but I can’t for the life of me figure out what we have that needs to be externally carry that weighs 35k. As for the 47, it’s a great aircraft I’m sure but no thanks, not a fan of tandem main rotors. Didn’t like the phrog much either but it did fill a role for us.
We are limited to carrying 24 pax to avoid combat loss. Need CO authority to pack the plane full. That’s for the 53E. Currently the 53E is also limited to 21-22k external load capacity (speaking real world not book numbers), and that’s early morning lifts and stripping the aircraft of unneeded weight ie auxiliary fuel tanks. I love the big iron and can’t wait to turn wrenches on the new king but I can’t for the life of me figure out what we have that needs to be externally carry that weighs 35k. As for the 47, it’s a great aircraft I’m sure but no thanks, not a fan of tandem main rotors. Didn’t like the phrog much either but it did fill a role for us.
Thanks for the input. I love our SMEs. I only flew in them, didn't fly them, so my perspective is different. I preferred the -53, especially after a hard landing in a phrog.
Aren't the 53E's getting pretty worn out by now?
Lawnchair 04
02-04-20, 13:15
Aren't the 53E's getting pretty worn out by now?
Yea buddy my newest echo was born in 87. There are older ones in the fleet though. They are getting pretty maintenance heavy. Last time I heard stats it was somewhere around 9 hours maintenance for every flight hour. We try not to fly less than 4 hours per flight. It adds up especially when it’s 2-3 aircraft flying per flight. We really don’t do single ship flights ever.
*chuckman just to be clear I didn’t fly them either just a mechanic/aircrew/maintenance controller. My love affair with the phrog ended with a emergency landing due to engine failure, at least in the 53 I could lose one or two and still make it home.
While I preferred riding in 53 D's & E's over the 46, I absolutely did not like backing a mutt & trailer up the ramp into the 53 next to that tail rotor, ESPECIALLY if it was parked closest to the fantail! :no:
While I preferred riding in 53 D's & E's over the 46, I absolutely did not like backing a mutt & trailer up the ramp into the 53 next to that tail rotor, ESPECIALLY if it was parked closest to the fantail! :no:
I always got a kick out of the sign as you exit the ramp that has the arrow for the direction you should go, and says don't turn right lol....
I always got a kick out of the sign as you exit the ramp that has the arrow for the direction you should go, and says don't turn right lol....
Yeah, that’s a mistake you’d never have a second chance to make! :eek:
dwhitehorne
02-04-20, 18:07
I remember in 1990 learning to fast rope at Geiger and it was the first time I saw a Blackhawk. Everyone talked that it was the new helicopter the air wing was going to. Interesting over 30 years later there is still talk of replacement of the 46 and 53 David.
We are limited to carrying 24 pax to avoid combat loss. Need CO authority to pack the plane full. That’s for the 53E. Currently the 53E is also limited to 21-22k external load capacity (speaking real world not book numbers), and that’s early morning lifts and stripping the aircraft of unneeded weight ie auxiliary fuel tanks. I love the big iron and can’t wait to turn wrenches on the new king but I can’t for the life of me figure out what we have that needs to be externally carry that weighs 35k. As for the 47, it’s a great aircraft I’m sure but no thanks, not a fan of tandem main rotors. Didn’t like the phrog much either but it did fill a role for us.
I don't know crap about helicopters. You guys have forgotten more about them then I'll ever know. However, maybe they want the external carrying capacity of whatever variation of the CH-53 we're talking about, to recover downed CH-47's and such.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/afghan053011/a28_00403422.jpg
We are limited to carrying 24 pax to avoid combat loss. Need CO authority to pack the plane full. That’s for the 53E. Currently the 53E is also limited to 21-22k external load capacity (speaking real world not book numbers), and that’s early morning lifts and stripping the aircraft of unneeded weight ie auxiliary fuel tanks. I love the big iron and can’t wait to turn wrenches on the new king but I can’t for the life of me figure out what we have that needs to be externally carry that weighs 35k. As for the 47, it’s a great aircraft I’m sure but no thanks, not a fan of tandem main rotors. Didn’t like the phrog much either but it did fill a role for us.
A light bulb just went off,
Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey
Empty weight: 31,818 lb (14,432 kg)
Operating weight, empty: 32,623 lb (14,798 kg)
but that's going to be one hellva sling load.
Ahh, the phrog. Dumping grunts in places they don't wanna be for 50 years. The same frame could very well have carried a Marine to Da Nang and his grandson in Afghanistan.
Lawnchair 04
02-05-20, 06:44
Mack you know you’re probably right I never followed the v22 that closely didn’t know it was such a heavy pig. I will say downed aircraft usually weigh less than than non crashed planes. In the slim chance we get to carry another airframe home, it will weigh a lot less than the book number. I know the original 53e criteria stated it needed the capability to external another 53 a specified distance. I know it wasn’t all that far from memory. It was in the ballpark of ship to shore not so much Texas to Connecticut.
Utahjeeper- another side fact my first unit was the last to retire the phrog so we got the remnants of the fleet birds, some of the logbooks revealed that those aircraft we got in 2012/2013 were built in the early to mid 60’s. I’m an airframer by trade and sometimes you would find a Purple Heart painted under a repair on various panels. Indicative of old war wounds. Pretty cool to be touching part of that history.
I looked up the weight on the King and it is also over 30k empty so a 53 carrying a 53 makes sense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.