Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USMC CH-53K  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5838 times:

The USMC will be getting new CH-53Ks in a few years. The CH-53K is a heavy lift copter that is even bigger than the current USMC/USAF CH/HH-53E.

This seems to be a blow to the USMC/USAF/USCG MV/CV-22 program.

Will the USAF and possibly the USN and USCG eventually order their own versions of the CH-53K?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5826 times:

Too big for the Coasties.

And it don't think it is a threat to the CV-22 program. It is intended to fullfill the same roles that the US Army used the Chinook for.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5708 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
This seems to be a blow to the USMC/USAF/USCG MV/CV-22 program.

The V-22 is designed primarily to replace the CH-46. 53 replacement has always been questionable. The MV-22 doesn't provide an equivalent capability.


User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5607 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The CH-53K is a heavy lift copter that is even bigger than the current USMC/USAF CH/HH-53E.

The 53K's max gross weight and lift capacity will be higher, but it will have the same overall external dimensions as the 53E. This is to ensure the K will "fit" everywhere the E does, with respect to USN ships and USAF C-5/C-17 transports.
Minor point - the USAF does not have 53E's, nor is there an HH-53E. The USAF has MH-53J's and MH-53M's.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
This seems to be a blow to the USMC/USAF/USCG MV/CV-22 program.

Not at all.
If anything, the MV-22 is a threat to the 53K - if the Osprey (or the JSF) needs more money thrown at it, NAVAIR will likely take those dollars from the 53K program. It sucks, but the Corps has shackled itself to an Osprey/JSF future...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
Will the USAF and possibly the USN and USCG eventually order their own versions of the CH-53K?

USN - the Navy may order a MH-53x variant down the line as a minesweeper, similar to what they did with the MH-53E. Supposedly, the Navy will be retiring it's MH-53E's and the AMCM mission will go to the USN MH-60 community. I have no idea how that will work out, because the MH-53E has just enough power to pull the AMCM sleds in hot weather, but that's supposedly the plan. Maybe there's new AMCM gear in the works...

USAF - If the CV-22 doesn't work out for the special ops/combat SAR mission, it's possible they may buy some 53K's down the line and put a Pave package on them. It would be a great idea IMO... three-engine redundancy, excellent hot-high power margins (which is where the HH-60 and the MH-53J/M struggle), good maneuverability, gobs of range & payload, and it'll likely still be the fastest helicopter in the US inventory.

USCG - the 53 is too much aircraft for their needs. The 53E puts out way too much rotorwash for over-water hoist rescues - there have been several attempts (and at least one success, with an F-14 crew), but the rotorwash actually pushed the survivors under the surface... not exactly what you're looking for in an over-water SAR platform.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 2):
53 replacement has always been questionable.

Only from a funding standpoint. It's been known in the Fleet for a long time that the 53E needed a SLEP or some other upgrade program. Sikorsky presented a plan to HQMC and NAVAIR in '99 or '00 (I can't remember which...) for a SLEP to the existing airframes, with most of the "goodies" the 53K is now supposed to get (elastomeric rotor head, upgraded main rotor blades, glass cockpit, new engines, etc.). This plan was pretty much kicked to the curb once OEF/OIF started, and the flight-hours started rocketing upward.

[Edited 2006-06-05 06:17:14]


Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5538 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 3):
Only from a funding standpoint. It's been known in the Fleet for a long time that the 53E needed a SLEP or some other upgrade program. Sikorsky presented a plan to HQMC and NAVAIR in '99 or '00 (I can't remember which...) for a SLEP to the existing airframes, with most of the "goodies" the 53K is now supposed to get (elastomeric rotor head, upgraded main rotor blades, glass cockpit, new engines, etc.). This plan was pretty much kicked to the curb once OEF/OIF started, and the flight-hours started rocketing upward.

I was refering to the MV-22 being the replacement for the 53. It was initially thought that it could in early development, but it's clear now it cannot.


User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
I was refering to the MV-22 being the replacement for the 53. It was initially thought that it could in early development, but it's clear now it cannot.

Ahhh, I see where you're coming from there.

Actually the MV-22 is replacing the CH-53D in the Corps. The plan was to retire the D's and buy a couple more squadrons' worth of Ospreys, but now I'm not sure if they're getting enough to equip the current CH-46E squadrons at a one-for-one exchange rate. Woulda been nice for the HMM/VMM Marines to get a couple more squadrons into the deployment rotation, so they could get a little more time in CONUS with their families...

[Edited 2006-06-05 22:15:23]


Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineRotorImage From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5317 times:

Take it from "one who knows"....There's no way the AF will ever get the Kilo....Much to the chagrin of the AF -53 community. After many a year as a red-headed stepchild, the AF is getting out of the heavy-lift helicopter business. The biggest coup for that particular community in the AF would be if the HH-47G wins the CSAR-X comp, but nobody really thinks that'll happen...

Incidentally, the last I heard from some USMC -53 contacts of mine, the K-model's maximum gross weight is slated to be 105,000lbs.....Compared to the 73,000 the Echos now fly at, and the 46-50,000lbs, the MH-53 does....wow....

Just my two cents...comments and other opinions are welcome...


User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5289 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
This seems to be a blow to the USMC/USAF/USCG MV/CV-22 program

There is no V-22 program for the USCG. Check out the deepwater website and you'll see there is no talk of it anywhere. I'm sure when it was back on paper they may have thought about it, but the idea probably left their mind just as quickly. I personally wouldn't trust the aircraft. Between seeing videos of it crashing and then having one divert to Prescott last semester on it'd delivery flight due to icing. The a/c was on it's delivery flight from Boeing to the USAF, was not rated for icing, flew into icing, tore up the brand new engines enough to make an "emergency" landing and spent 2 weeks in my schools(Embry-Riddle) maint. hangar while they flew in 2 brand new engines to replace the 2 brand new engines. Here's a website from a local guy, nice old man, I've talked to him a few times http://www.pbase.com/logear/prescott_aircraft&page=13

(also plenty of good pics of the relatively diverse amount of aircraft we get there)



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5288 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 7):
There is no V-22 program for the USCG.

To be sure, there will be tiltrotors in USCG colors:




When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5272 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 8):
To be sure, there will be tiltrotors in USCG colors:

Correct, I was thinking about that as I was typing but forgot to put it in. The contract and all that went to bell and they have already done their first few test flights. I believe they (Bell) is looking for certification by the end of this year.

http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system/vuav.htm
http://www.teamdeepwater.com/pressroom/index.php?id=167



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5234 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 7):
The a/c was on it's delivery flight from Boeing to the USAF, was not rated for icing, flew into icing, tore up the brand new engines enough to make an "emergency" landing...

There's FAR more to the story than that. Unfortunately, that's all I can say in public.

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 6):
The biggest coup for that particular community in the AF would be if the HH-47G wins the CSAR-X comp, but nobody really thinks that'll happen...

I haven't paid much attention to this - what platforms are in the running?

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 6):
the last I heard from some USMC -53 contacts of mine, the K-model's maximum gross weight is slated to be 105,000lbs.....

GAWD! Almost makes me wanna tear up my brand-new Air Force Reserve contract and re-enlist in the Corps... Almost.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5216 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 10):
There's FAR more to the story than that. Unfortunately, that's all I can say in public.

Do you mean to the part about why it had to make the "emergency" (thats the word I heard used several times and I think those people even used it loosely) or about what happend once it was on the ground? Because I hear there were some problems as far as logistics go about how/who is going to repair it etc. due to the fact the air force had not yet officially taken delivery (or something like that)



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 7):
I'm sure when it was back on paper they may have thought about it, but the idea probably left their mind just as quickly.

The USCG has never been known as a service that buys equipment on the leading edge of technology. Look at the Jayhawk and when it replaced the HH3-in the early 1990's about 10 years after the Blackhawk had about 15 years of flight experience behind it.

I think Tiltrotor technology is just too new for them at this point.

Bell was trying very hard to get the USCG interested in the 609 tiltrotor. Frankly if you get the same reliabilty out of the tiltrotors that you are getting out of today's helicopters that would be a great mix-Bell 609's and Ospreys.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRotorImage From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

Jarhead....

Right now the platforms in the running for CSAR-X are the US101, S-92, and HH-47G.....My money is on the US101....

However, after today's announcement that LUH went to Eurocopter, and the fact that they chose the US101 (VH-71) to go to HMX-1 for the VIP gig, I wouldn't be surprised if they throw Sikorsky a bone and get the S-92. IMHO the US101 is probably the "right" airframe for the job....

We'll see...

BTW, what reserve unit are you headed to?


User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5157 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 11):
Do you mean to the part about why it had to make the "emergency" (thats the word I heard used several times and I think those people even used it loosely) or about what happend once it was on the ground?

I'm referring to the entire story. But like I said, I can't say anything more than that. Not trying to be cryptic, just trying to do the right thing. And quite honestly, I now regret even posting that in the first place. Shoulda thought that through a bit more...  sigh 

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 13):
BTW, what reserve unit are you headed to?

78ARS



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 14):
I'm referring to the entire story. But like I said, I can't say anything more than that. Not trying to be cryptic, just trying to do the right thing. And quite honestly, I now regret even posting that in the first place. Shoulda thought that through a bit more...

Eh, dont worry about it. Even the government can't hide things when something that unique lands at a local civil airport (especially with Embry-Riddle there). Plus the general aviation public can put 2 and 2 together when they see a plane with it's engines exposed and technicians crawling around it then disappear into the only suitable hanger at the field for nearly 2 weeks.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5111 times:

Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 15):
Even the government can't hide things when something that unique lands at a local civil airport

An incident DID happen; I'm not denying that, and it would be folly for anyone to try.



Cleared to Contact
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic USMC CH-53K
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


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!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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


Similar topics:More similar topics...
CH-53E And CH-53K Comparison posted Tue Apr 11 2006 04:58:48 by AFEaviator
CH 53K And Eurocopter HTH: A Common Project? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 20:03:47 by Columba
Usmc CH-53E Replacements? posted Fri Aug 30 2002 23:27:00 by AFC_ajax00
Usmc Awards $18.8B Contract For CH-53K posted Fri Jan 13 2006 03:06:16 by AirRyan
Usmc posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:07:33 by PJFlysFast
New Boeing CH-47F Helicopter Takes Flight posted Thu Oct 26 2006 09:53:54 by Columba
Usmc Looks To Revive OV-10s For Use In Iraq posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:16:32 by Papoose
Usmc C-9's posted Sat Aug 12 2006 05:20:49 by Socal
German Army Will Up-grade Their CH 53s posted Thu Aug 3 2006 07:23:03 by Columba
Canada CH-149 Cormorant Ditches In Ocean posted Thu Jul 13 2006 13:28:09 by Cruiser

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format