CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4467 posts, RR: 5 Posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1914 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?
UH-60 BLACK HAWK
CH-46 SEA KNIGHT
CH-53 SUPER SEA STALLION
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1822 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.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1806 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.
KCmike From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1777 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.
Woodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1053 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1755 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.