Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Army & Marine Rotary Questions.  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4555 posts, RR: 5
Posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

I was wondering why the Marines seem to have a large variety of cargo capable aircraft in relation to the Army? What is the Army's equivalent to the CH-53 or CH-46 depending upon which way you look at it?





"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2169 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

The Chinook is somewhere in between the Sea Stallion and the Sea Knight in lift capability. I know the Army uses the Chinook for heavy lift and the Marines use the CH-53 for heavy lift. The Army uses the Blachawk for its main troop transport, whereas the Marines use Ch-46's for troop assaults transport. The Army has the Apache for a gunship, the Marines the Cobra.

I've always been a bit surprised that the 3 engined Stallion hasn't been used by the Army. The Stallion lifts a lot more, goes a lot faster, and is the largest helicopter outside of the Russian Mi-6/Mi-26 giants. The Army used to use the unique CH-54 Skycrane for its equivalent to the Stallion, but that was dropped long ago.

Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

You're forgetting a service.. USAF. USAF uses the H-53 for special ops as does the Marine Corps. Marines also use the H-53 for vertical envelopment from the sea, a mission the Army does not have.

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 66
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

The Army has been fighting that battle since the Air Force split off from it. The Air Force itself has probably lobbied against the Army having any aircraft that are remotely competetive with USAF missions.

During Vietnam I recall DoD giving all the CV-2 Caribou aircraft to the Air Force without much explanation. The Army had been operating the Caribou almost like an airline, going to every little dirt strip at every Special Forces camp from Ca Mau to Khe Sanh. The USAF did not particularly want the 'Bou and immediately dropped about half of these strips from their ops. I can tell you for sure that Special Forces felt better served by the Army than they were by the Air Force.

I think nothing better illustrates the difference than the fact that the USAF re-designated the Caribou as a C-7. They dropped the prefix V which meant STOL. That was concurrent with a huge reduction in STOL operations and a virtual cessation of LOLEX (which the Air Foce called LAPES) operations.

The USAF also objected to the Army hanging .50 machineguns in pods under the wings of some of our OV-1 Mohawks and the fable is that General Westmoreland personally came to the rescue of that practice. The Air Force just generally did not like the Army being able to provide its own air support in any role.

I expect it is not much different today.

The Navy has remained immune to the Air Force' lobbying because there are things the Air Force just won't do - like land on ships.

So, when it comes to heavy lift helicopters the DoD seems to want the Army to depend on the other branches to haul their trash.

Ironically the Army did have the CH-54 which pretty well topped the chart on helicopters and the CH-47 could carry a fully-loaded CH-46 even if the Navy helo was "spot-welded to a padeye" as they like to say. The Chinnook is a heavy lifter and the CH-54 beat an RF-4 in a drag race to ten thousand feet every year here in Reno at the annual Guard open house.

Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineKCmike From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 553 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

the CH47 and UH60 meet the army's needs. Why get 53's when the 47 does just as good a job. Especially in Afghanistan where the environment and altitudes are extremely rough on the airframes. Those are some tough birds and they fly ALOT of hours downrange. The CH47 is just a dam good aircraft. As for the UH-1 and UH60 comparism. The 60 is stronger and can carry more and it too can take a beating and keep flying. Finally attack, no need to compare an AH1 to 64D.
The Army's fleet of choppers is excellent.

Cleared for the option...
User currently offlineWoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1190 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Because the Navy won't pay to have new helicopters built for the Marine Corps... Is my guess.

The UH-1N is not really a cargo carrier, it's used as a command and control bird and a support gunship to support the AH-1 Cobras.

CH-46's are the Marines' version of the Army's UH-60s. All of the CH-46's date from the Vietnam era and I don't think any of them are younger than 35 years. The Army UH-60's are much newer and I think are more capable.

CH-53's are equivalent to the Army's CH-47's. I don't know anything about the CH-47 to give you a comparison. Other than the CH-53's are probably older than the Army's CH-47's.

CH-46's are the primary assault support bird for the Marines. Because of the size of the CH-53, they can only get spotted aft in spots 8 or 9. Can't put them forward because they have no visual reference with the ship to land or takeoff safely (all they can see is the sea) and can't land them on the midship spots because there is insufficent rotor clearance with the superstructure.

So in terms of capability, it would be more advantageous to use a CH-53 because of its greater capability, but in actual practice, it's limited to two per deck launch cycle, and there's normally only four in the squadron to choose from. There are more CH-46's available so they are the primary workhorse aircraft and they can be launched from any of the spots. When they're loaded for bear for an actual mission however, they can't do vertical takeoffs. They have to do deck runs to get the translational lift to help get them in the air. So the CH-46's spotted in the forward spots (1, 2, and 3) have to be light loaded so that they can do a vertical takeoff (as there is no deck left to do a deck run.) The midship and aft spotted (spots 4-8) CH-46's can be max loaded for their deck run.

Operating from land they don't have this limitation of course.

But the one time we had an Army CH-47 land on our deck, it was huge, easily taking up the space that a CH-53 would take. I liked operating with the Army OH-6 Loaches, we launched 9 of those suckers in the space we could launch 2 CH-53's.

Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4555 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

Does anyone have any information on the new build CH-53Xs along with the MV-22? While I prefer Army Aviation, it just seems that the Marine Corp has a great variety of aircraft to fly.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineEfohdee From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

The CH-47 is the Army's best helicopter (now that the Huey is "retired"), proven in all enviroments all over the world. They'll never trade it in for anything else, at least anytime soon. Just my .02

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Army & Marine Rotary Questions.
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Marine One Questions. posted Wed Dec 1 2004 21:29:45 by CX747
US Army Rotary Training posted Tue Jan 17 2006 00:27:35 by StealthZ
Marine Corps & A-10? posted Mon Aug 23 2004 23:02:13 by JMV
U.S. Army Deployment Questions. posted Mon Mar 3 2003 06:00:21 by CX747
The EH-101 Repacement For Marine One - When? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 18:53:05 by Gh123
NZ Army Puts Spy Planes To The Test posted Thu Oct 19 2006 11:32:13 by 777ER
Argentine Army Aircraft Crashes Near Buenos Aires posted Wed Sep 13 2006 14:20:07 by Lanas
"Right Stuff" Movie & Book - Inaccuracies? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 01:30:34 by SCEagle
US Army Exclude C130J From JCA posted Thu Aug 31 2006 14:02:00 by Bennett123
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
US Army Rotary Training posted Tue Jan 17 2006 00:27:35 by StealthZ
Marine Corps & A-10? posted Mon Aug 23 2004 23:02:13 by JMV
U.S. Army Deployment Questions. posted Mon Mar 3 2003 06:00:21 by CX747
US Army Helicopter Pilots posted Sun Mar 28 2010 10:26:51 by UAL727NE
US Army Privite Jets.... posted Sun Mar 28 2010 09:06:50 by UAL727NE
Osprey For Marine One? posted Sun Feb 21 2010 00:47:55 by DEVILFISH
US Army Using UH-1Y In Afghanistan? posted Wed Feb 17 2010 13:39:55 by AirRyan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format