View Full Version : Germany officially requests CH-47F Chinooks
Sixty Chinooks seems like a healthy quantity. These are slated to replace their current fleet of CH-53's.
"The Government of Germany has requested to buy sixty (60) CH-47F Block II Cargo Helicopters with customer-unique modifications; one hundred forty (140) T-55-GA-714A engines (120 installed, 20 spares);seventy-two (72) AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS) (60 installed, 12 spares); and two hundred eighty-four (284) AN/ARC-231A Communications Security (COMSEC) radios (240 installed, 44 spares). Also included are AN/AVR-2B Laser Detecting Sets; AN/APR-39C(V)1 Radar Detecting Sets;AN/ARC-220 High Frequency (HF) radios with electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM); military Precise Positioning Service (PPS) (to include SAASM or M-Code); Digital Advanced Flight Control Systems (DAFCS); AN/APX-123A Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) transponder; AN/ARN-147 very high frequency (VHS) omnidirectional range and instrument landing system (VOR/ILS); AN/ARN-153 Tactical Air Navigation Systems (TACAN); air data computers; AN/APN-209 radar altimeter systems; AN/PYQ-10 simple key loaders; KIV-77 Mode 4/5 IFF Applique; KY-100M narrowband/wideband terminal COMSEC devices; AN/AVS-6 Night Vision Devices (NVD); IDM-401 Improved Data Modem; air-to-air refueling probes; M134 gun mounts; Infrared Suppression System (IRSS); Engine Air Particle Separator (EAPS); Ballistic Protection System (BPS) with Cockpit; cabin sides; Midas Underfloor COOLS; Extended Range Fuel System (ERFS) 800 gal and 500 gal; Forward Area Refueling Equipment (FARE); Tie Down Materiel/Helicopter Under-Slung Load Equipment (HUSLE) for internal and external loads; rotorbrake; rescue hoists; Fast Rope Insertion/Extraction System (FRIES); Electro Optical Infrared Sensors (EO/IR); crash resistant pilot and troop seats; skis; life rafts; litter straps and fittings; mission equipment (e.g., jungle penetrator; litter basket; Jacob’s ladder; Airborne Tactical Extraction Platform (AirTEP); special tools and test equipment; ground support equipment; airframe and engine spare parts; technical data; publications; Maintenance Work Orders/Engineering Change Proposals (MWO/ECPs); Repair and Return (R&R); technical assistance; airworthiness assistance; transportation of aircraft; training; flight training and maintenance trainers; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $8.5 billion."
https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/Press%20Release%20-%20Germany%2023-26%20CN.pdf
Averageman
05-11-23, 17:37
Germans (and this is counter to everything I used to know about Germans after living in Germany for nine years) can't perform maintenace on anything.
Unless something has changed, they won't fly long.
Germans (and this is counter to everything I used to know about Germans after living in Germany for nine years) can't perform maintenace on anything.
Unless something has changed, they won't fly long.
Interesting, I didn’t know that. I guess that is why they over-engineer everything, so they don’t have to fix it?
They've been flying Tornados and CH-53's for over 35 years, so somebody has to be fixing them. If they could negotiate a long-term maintenance contract with Boeing, they could shift some of the new Chinook work to them.
They should of figured this out 10 years ago !
Averageman
05-11-23, 19:25
Interesting, I didn’t know that. I guess that is why they over-engineer everything, so they don’t have to fix it?
The Germans at one point During OIAF parked a helocopter version of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. The Ship barely floated and the Helicopters were non existant. Yeah we paid for all repairs
Anybody remember what the capability differences between a 47 and 53 are? I’ve flown on both but can’t remember specs.
Sidneyious
05-12-23, 01:56
Germans (and this is counter to everything I used to know about Germans after living in Germany for nine years) can't perform maintenace on anything.
Unless something has changed, they won't fly long.
Can't let the invaders ruin everything if you make it so complex they can't fix it themselves then the invaders have no choice but to leave when it's all broke.
Coal Dragger
05-12-23, 02:34
Anybody remember what the capability differences between a 47 and 53 are? I’ve flown on both but can’t remember specs.
Off the top of my head the 53’s can lift more weight and fly quite a bit faster, but they have a tail rotor waiting lop heads off if you make the wrong turn exiting the back. Probably more maintenance intensive, and probably not as forgiving for the pilots to fly.
The 47’s are a bit smaller and a bit slower but have better performance at altitude. Probably easier to maintain, more forgiving to fly, and don’t have a decapitation blade out back waiting for errant grunts.
The version that was offered to Germany was the CH-53K, which the USMC is receiving nowadays. It basically priced itself out of the competition.
Anybody remember what the capability differences between a 47 and 53 are? I’ve flown on both but can’t remember specs.
Off the top of my head the 53’s can lift more weight and fly quite a bit faster, but they have a tail rotor waiting lop heads off if you make the wrong turn exiting the back. Probably more maintenance intensive, and probably not as forgiving for the pilots to fly.
The 47’s are a bit smaller and a bit slower but have better performance at altitude. Probably easier to maintain, more forgiving to fly, and don’t have a decapitation blade out back waiting for errant grunts.
Pretty much my thoughts from a "ride in the back" perspective. I've only actually ridden in Hueys, Phrogs, and Shitters Shitters carry more weight but not more troops. Never flew in a 47 but I have been inside one on the deck. I thought it would be better for troop use than the 53. I liked the Phrog but it is a squad sized people mover. The 47 seems like it would be just as good as the 46 only bigger.
As I understand the 47 is not suitable for deployment on ships.
If heavy lift was your primary concern, pick the 53. Same if you need to put it on boats. 47 seems better for general purpose so long as it meets your lift requirements.
That tail rotor on the 53 isn't a deal breaker, but it is something you need to be aware of. And why does the tail rotor have to look like it was put on by Century Arms?
This new "K" model can apparently fit a couple 463L aircraft pallets inside, or a HMMWV.
The Germans fly the CH-53D, an older aircraft. It does not have the performance of the three-engine CH-53E, nor the even bigger CH-53K.
You certainly can operate the Chinook off carriers.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/USSAmerica_jpg-2814027.JPG
Has Germany ever operated their helicopters from US carriers?
The Germans fly the CH-53D, an older aircraft. It does not have the performance of the three-engine CH-53E, nor the even bigger CH-53K.
You certainly can operate the Chinook off carriers.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/USSAmerica_jpg-2814027.JPG
I stand corrected. I didn't think they were built to fold up and stow like the 46 or 53. Like I said, I was cargo. What do I know.
https://cdn10.picryl.com/photo/1994/04/01/flight-deck-crewmen-on-board-the-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier-uss-george-d0aca6-1024.jpg
Off the top of my head the 53’s can lift more weight and fly quite a bit faster, but they have a tail rotor waiting lop heads off if you make the wrong turn exiting the back. Probably more maintenance intensive, and probably not as forgiving for the pilots to fly.
The 47’s are a bit smaller and a bit slower but have better performance at altitude. Probably easier to maintain, more forgiving to fly, and don’t have a decapitation blade out back waiting for errant grunts.
^^^this is fairly accurate. Just to add the 53K is supposed to have a higher ceiling then the 47F, but I'm guessing this is after certain modifications. 47 (in general) airframe usually cannot be specialized as much as the 53 for certain mission sets.
The Germans fly the CH-53D, an older aircraft. It does not have the performance of the three-engine CH-53E, nor the even bigger CH-53K.
You certainly can operate the Chinook off carriers.
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/18978/USSAmerica_jpg-2814027.JPG
And just to note, that looks like a Nimitz class carrier and not a Wasp (LHD) or America (LHA) class. Meaning that the number of 47's would have to be dramatically reduced. The typically load out for a LHD is 3-6 53's
Coal Dragger
05-12-23, 14:52
The version that was offered to Germany was the CH-53K, which the USMC is receiving nowadays. It basically priced itself out of the competition.
LOL.
That’s like offering up an F-450 to someone looking to buy a 1/2 ton.
Since Germany had a fairly long history of operating the CH-53, some observers saw the CH-53K as having a leg up in the competition. Wasn't to be though. To date, Israel is the only other country to order the "K".
Lawnchair 04
05-12-23, 16:02
47 fit on LHD/LPD as well though not long term, a standard MEU detachment is 4 53’s attached to VMM squadron. Whether they decide to put all four on a LPD or keep them on the LHD is entirely up to the MEU CO and the ACE CO depending on where and what they expect to be doing.** also to add as of a couple days ago they were still considering the 53k I’m not sure how many or in what capacity they plan to employ them, at least that was the talk around the squadron.
Pacific5th
05-12-23, 18:02
Pretty sure the 53 can lift more but the 47 can hold more troops. I was only on a 47 once from FOB Falcon to Baghdad International but it frlt like we half the battery and our packs in there.
Germans (and this is counter to everything I used to know about Germans after living in Germany for nine years) can't perform maintenace on anything.
Unless something has changed, they won't fly long.
WFT happened over there? In the 80s they were some of the most mechanically inclined people I had ever seen.
The Germans at one point During OIAF parked a helocopter version of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. The Ship barely floated and the Helicopters were non existant. Yeah we paid for all repairs
LOL. Are you sure that wasn't an intentional strategically economic deployment? Germans have more than half a century of letting the US cover the cost of their national defense efforts.
Anybody remember what the capability differences between a 47 and 53 are? I’ve flown on both but can’t remember specs.
One of the guys on here is in a -53 squadron and is a SME. I hope he pipes in.
The version that was offered to Germany was the CH-53K, which the USMC is receiving nowadays. It basically priced itself out of the competition.
The King Stallion? It's the biggest helo we have now, with most lift capacity.
The King Stallion? It's the biggest helo we have now, with most lift capacity.
Yes, and the price apparently gave Germany sticker shock.
Lawnchair 04
05-13-23, 23:03
It gives me sticker shock every time I think about it. The 53k has the highest light capacity by a large margin now and that’s even with the detuned engines. They moved a LAV to one of the zones just so we had something to pick up that was worth our time. I believe they told us it weighed 20k because it was demilled basic just a training weight. The only problem was the plane told us it weighed 24k, which isn’t a problem but that’s far off even for practice. Turns out they left the hatches open on top and never drained the rain water out of it. The plane never broke a sweat. I can tell you from personal experience that I’ve seen an echo model stripped down to min weight and max power barely able to pull 20k. The K is a freaking beast but you’re gonna pay for it. Also fits an entire airforce pallet(width wise) inside without removing seats.
Averageman
05-13-23, 23:43
LOL. Are you sure that wasn't an intentional strategically economic deployment? Germans have more than half a century of letting the US cover the cost of their national defense efforts.
Well after the Cold War ended, I would guess they ran out of Euro's to spend and F's to give.
I'm retired, but from time to time, I will still read up on some Tank stuff. Lot's of bad times for their Tanks and then when I read the article about the Helicopter Aircraftcarrier I couldn't believe it.
They've got some nice designs, but unless they are field testing the heck out of them, who knows? The Bundesvier isnt doing anything.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.