Djlorry3 wrote:

Chinook with the newer, more powerful engine would provide the best bang for bucks. I hope my government will go for this solution.

I agree, but my guess is unless the the US army commits to buying a CH-47 with the T408 upgrade Boeing will do everything it can to convince Germany to buy the T55 version to avoid having to certify a T408 version.

As stated up thread, that Boeing has partnered with RR Germany for support on this bid seems to indicate it will be…the T55.

744SPX wrote:

Djlorry3 wrote:

Chinook with the newer, more powerful engine would provide the best bang for bucks. I hope my government will go for this solution.

I agree, but my guess is unless the the US army commits to buying a CH-47 with the T408 upgrade Boeing will do everything it can to convince Germany to buy the T55 version to avoid having to certify a T408 version.

The question is more complex than "what is the cheapest solution?". From a pure financial point of view the CH-47 with its large user base is certainly the way to go. However: a sole CH-47 fleet in Europe has the disadvantage of all eggs being in one basket - the CH-53K, even if only operated by one nation in larger quantity, would drastically mitigate risks associated with a single type fleet.

I´m more in the camp that Germany will go for the CH-53K.

texl1649 wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind the 53K is more capable, but at what price is it worth it to the Germans? The commonality with the French/other Chinook operators seems like a no brainer, with the industrial partnerships Boing et al. Have lined up, unless money is just no object now to them.

Wouldn't the crews be more familiar with the -53 as the German army already flies an earlier variant? Or is the 53K just in name similar tech to its predecessors?

I believe there is functionally zero system/flight control/type rating similarity with the K. That was just a budget trick the US used to develop it, but it’s a new fuselage, entirely new cockpit (mission management, digital fly by wire, etc., actually to standardize more so across Army helicopter standards), engines, rotors, etc. It just looks similar to the old Super Stallions, visually and dimensionally. The German CH53G’s from the 70’s I think likely don’t share a single rivet.

It's a smart trick for the US, just as for the F-18 and now F-15, to hide what is essentially a new system in old looks. While the US has two super heavy helicopter types, the Ch-47 and Ch-53, EU has none. The EH-101 comes in as the heaviest while the NH-90 is slightly smaller. The Europeans learned in Mail and Sahara, that there you can't drive and even helicopters as the NH-90 does not have to range. A country like Mali is the size of France and that puts strain on esp the helicopter's range. As France does not have 47 or 53, they got help fra the UKs 47s and Denmarks 101s as well as others. Ukraine is also putting this into sharp relief, as it is a huge country, and we might have to fight a war there in the future.

In the question of strategic sovereignty, it may make sense to ensure EU has the indigenous capability to make as many platforms as possible, rather than relying on buying US systems. Esp in helicopters, we have the industry to do it and Airbus Helicopters are mainly in Germany. This is not only about SA, but also about jobs and maintaining strategic technologies and strategic platforms in EU. All respect for the US, but Trump or someone like him could be reelected in 2024. I hope not, but it is a real risk, and EU should prepare for it and also Germany.
While there are users of super heavy helicopters eg Germany, UK and Holland primarily, Germany is key to bringing critical mass to an EU heavy-lift helicopter program, as it carries the numbers required to do that. However, instead of being out early, they are out late, again, which will likely exclude developing an indiginous European system. Just as with the MPA and the TLVA air defense. For the latter they could enter the SAMP-T project with France and Italy. The biggest threat to the EU's strategic autonomy in weapons is not others, but the German MoD, regrettably. If we are to develop EU systems, we need to start much earlier, and that means they have to start much earlier.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

The question is more complex than "what is the cheapest solution?". From a pure financial point of view the CH-47 with its large user base is certainly the way to go. However: a sole CH-47 fleet in Europe has the disadvantage of all eggs being in one basket - the CH-53K, even if only operated by one nation in larger quantity, would drastically mitigate risks associated with a single type fleet.

The bigger the fleet. the more incentive it is for the OEM to fix any potential problem.

The recent excercise in the Pacific highlight the same issue with the CH-47 vs CH-53K debate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/skiesmag.c ... gon/%3famp

While the Canadian brought a different set of assets to the excerise and ultimately won the competition, they were burden with additional logistics issue because their frame us old and they could not borrow parts from the other participants.

bt

The Chinook is also…basically a 60 year old design/frame. There aren’t a lot of ‘surprises’ coming, imho, from a grounding perspective.

texl1649 wrote:

The Chinook is also…basically a 60 year old design/frame.

So was the 737. It's not necessary the structural design, it's the new fangled software and upgraded engines that can cause problems.

Stick with the existing engines and not try to get the extra power, and CH-47 will be fine for Germany.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

The question is more complex than "what is the cheapest solution?". From a pure financial point of view the CH-47 with its large user base is certainly the way to go. However: a sole CH-47 fleet in Europe has the disadvantage of all eggs being in one basket - the CH-53K, even if only operated by one nation in larger quantity, would drastically mitigate risks associated with a single type fleet.

The bigger the fleet. the more incentive it is for the OEM to fix any potential problem.

The recent excercise in the Pacific highlight the same issue with the CH-47 vs CH-53K debate.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/skiesmag.c ... gon/%3famp

While the Canadian brought a different set of assets to the excerise and ultimately won the competition, they were burden with additional logistics issue because their frame us old and they could not borrow parts from the other participants.

bt

NH90 anyone? Or A400M anyone? Or EH101? F-35? KC-46A? All of them are de facto single source options, and none of them has a stellar record of the OEM being willing (or able) to fix matters on short- or even longer-notice to the client´s satisfaction. That´s an argument I´m not buying.

Re Canadian excercice: at the end of the day they won - and that´s what counts. Any, turning the argument around: it wasn´t the "mainstream platform" P-8 which succeeded, but a platform with a much smaller fleet footprint.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

All of them are de facto single source options, and none of them has a stellar record of the OEM being willing (or able) to fix matters on short- or even longer-notice to the client´s satisfaction.

P-8A and E-7 are basically single source platforms themselves. The E-7 had a long and rough gestation period but is now a premier platform. The P-8A did not have a trouble free development either, but issues were relatively minor compared to other programs.

If countries have plenty of cash, then it would be a wise move to have multiple platforms to hedge against any one system going bad. I'm not sure if Germany has the cash to be the futures bet against the CH-47.

As for the Canadian victory, my sense from the article was that the victory was because of the proficiency of the crew and not necessarily because of the platform. And if you were to ask the crew, they probably would prefer to fly on the P-8 themselves.

Not sure from this heavy lift competition either platform has any preferences from the crew themselves.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

The Chinook is also…basically a 60 year old design/frame.

So was the 737. It's not necessary the structural design, it's the new fangled software and upgraded engines that can cause problems.

Stick with the existing engines and not try to get the extra power, and CH-47 will be fine for Germany.

bt

The Germans, if they select the Chinook will be getting the T55 as per above. Boeing’s partnerships make that clear. If they ever do get the T408 upgrade etc., it would be well past 2040-45, imho. Boeing knows how to mount/fly the newer engine, after all, but the Germans aren’t going to be the first to deal with reliability, let the US Army do all that leg work/cost.

Whether Lockheed will still be (affordably) supporting the CH-53K if/when the USMC retires the type, is much more speculative, past 2050 or 2060, imho. Anything is possible, as per the KC-10 as it will always have a smaller fleet, globally, vs. the Chinook, and the Germans have already operated the predecessor type for going on 45 years, after all. If a cheap tiltrotor (derived perhaps from a V-280??) becomes available, to fill much of the CH-53K mission set at a lower price, I could see a big change down the road. The Germans prospectively marrying up with Israel as the only possible operator of the aircraft in a couple decades…well it is a bit funny.

Oh that's right. There will always be an aftermarket for CH-47 including to nations with smaller budgets. Those nations will probably avoid the CH-53 like the plague.

bt

It think the Chinook is faster and more agile than the CH53K. Due to it's twin rotors.
For operational survivability and battle field operations that is essential.
Big machine guns and worse everywhere, looking on Ukraine youtubes..

https://youtu.be/yk-om_i1AVQ

744SPX wrote:

Djlorry3 wrote:

Chinook with the newer, more powerful engine would provide the best bang for bucks. I hope my government will go for this solution.

I agree, but my guess is unless the the US army commits to buying a CH-47 with the T408 upgrade Boeing will do everything it can to convince Germany to buy the T55 version to avoid having to certify a T408 version.

I meant the T55-GA-714C with 25% power increase and 10% less fuel consumption that is currently in development/test phase by Honeywell.

texl1649 wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind the 53K is more capable, but at what price is it worth it to the Germans? The commonality with the French/other Chinook operators seems like a no brainer, with the industrial partnerships Boing et al. Have lined up, unless money is just no object now to them.

I understood the 53K cost $97M with no support, spare parts, nothing.
A Chinook costs under $30M each.

Would you rather have 3 Chinooks, or one CH-53K?


(I don't know the operating costs of a CH-53K, it would be reasonable to believe it's much higher than a Chinook.)

https://verticalmag.com/news/us-army-bu ... -chinooks/
https://news.usni.org/2021/07/05/marine ... %20million.

kitplane01 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind the 53K is more capable, but at what price is it worth it to the Germans? The commonality with the French/other Chinook operators seems like a no brainer, with the industrial partnerships Boing et al. Have lined up, unless money is just no object now to them.

I understood the 53K cost $97M with no support, spare parts, nothing.
A Chinook costs under $30M each.

Would you rather have 3 Chinooks, or one CH-53K?


(I don't know the operating costs of a CH-53K, it would be reasonable to believe it's much higher than a Chinook.)

https://verticalmag.com/news/us-army-bu ... -chinooks/
https://news.usni.org/2021/07/05/marine ... %20million.

What are the relative differences in capability? My understanding is the CH-53K is (on paper) a far more capable airframe.

N328KF wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind the 53K is more capable, but at what price is it worth it to the Germans? The commonality with the French/other Chinook operators seems like a no brainer, with the industrial partnerships Boing et al. Have lined up, unless money is just no object now to them.

I understood the 53K cost $97M with no support, spare parts, nothing.
A Chinook costs under $30M each.

Would you rather have 3 Chinooks, or one CH-53K?


(I don't know the operating costs of a CH-53K, it would be reasonable to believe it's much higher than a Chinook.)

https://verticalmag.com/news/us-army-bu ... -chinooks/
https://news.usni.org/2021/07/05/marine ... %20million.

What are the relative differences in capability? My understanding is the CH-53K is (on paper) a far more capable airframe.

Llook on Wikipedia. It’s easy.

But in summary, a ch53k is 22000 hp and 74000 lbs. A Chinook is 9,500 hp and 50000 lbs. A Chinook is about 1/2 of a CH 53k at 1/3 the price.

kitplane01 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind the 53K is more capable, but at what price is it worth it to the Germans? The commonality with the French/other Chinook operators seems like a no brainer, with the industrial partnerships Boing et al. Have lined up, unless money is just no object now to them.

I understood the 53K cost $97M with no support, spare parts, nothing.
A Chinook costs under $30M each.

Would you rather have 3 Chinooks, or one CH-53K?

Issue with this: you won´t get three times the number of helicopters. Its about 60 CH-53K or 60 CH-47 - not 60 CH-53K or 180 CH-47. Thus this arguement is moot.

If you´re looking at 180 frames you´ll all of a sudden need new airfield (bzw, the hangars for the CH-47 need to be modified as far as I´m aware, the gurrent CH-53 hangars don´t fit), more crew etc.

If you look at raw technical performance it is more than obvious that the CH-53K is a class better than the CH-47. And again: it might be very opportune for NATO to have to different helicopters available, with different capabilities.

Apparently Lookheed and Rheinmetall have confirmed to the German Armed Forces that the first CH-53K could be fielded in 2025 already, with training to start in the US much earlier.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind the 53K is more capable, but at what price is it worth it to the Germans? The commonality with the French/other Chinook operators seems like a no brainer, with the industrial partnerships Boing et al. Have lined up, unless money is just no object now to them.

I understood the 53K cost $97M with no support, spare parts, nothing.
A Chinook costs under $30M each.

Would you rather have 3 Chinooks, or one CH-53K?

Issue with this: you won´t get three times the number of helicopters. Its about 60 CH-53K or 60 CH-47 - not 60 CH-53K or 180 CH-47. Thus this arguement is moot.

If you´re looking at 180 frames you´ll all of a sudden need new airfield (bzw, the hangars for the CH-47 need to be modified as far as I´m aware, the gurrent CH-53 hangars don´t fit), more crew etc.

If you look at raw technical performance it is more than obvious that the CH-53K is a class better than the CH-47. And again: it might be very opportune for NATO to have to different helicopters available, with different capabilities.

Apparently Lookheed and Rheinmetall have confirmed to the German Armed Forces that the first CH-53K could be fielded in 2025 already, with training to start in the US much earlier.

I think those are very extreme numbers. Frankly, it is probably the case that 70 -47F’s vs. 60 -53K’s might be more accurate. The -47 also has the future upgradable capacity for the T-408’s (which have, after all, already flown with/on it). Not my circus, not my money, but I would be hard pressed to identify what missions the Germans would need the extra -53K capabilities for (for that matter, I am not real sure why the Chinook couldn’t have been marinized for the USMC to save about 80 percent of the cost/delays vs. the gold-plated King Stallions). To my mind, the most significant benefit would be sea-based missions and corrosion resistance (vs. raw power/lift capability), but that is still…speculative long term for the -53K.

I haven’t seen that documented, anyway, and if said capabilities were exclusionary I am not sure why they are entertaining a Boeing bid anyway.

What is the real requirement? I mean the current CH-47 is more than powerful enough to replace the existing German CH-53D capabilities.

Are they asking for more capabilities than the current fleet?

As for the cost difference. It is absolutely important. If you have to spend less up front for the frames, you can spend more on the back end for support, maintenance and training.

Even with a larger defense budget, saving money on one system allows you to buy other systems to fill out your short comings.

For example, the 5 P-8A are just the start. They will need more money to fill out the rest of the MMA fleet.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

Flying-Tiger wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I understood the 53K cost $97M with no support, spare parts, nothing.
A Chinook costs under $30M each.

Would you rather have 3 Chinooks, or one CH-53K?

Issue with this: you won´t get three times the number of helicopters. Its about 60 CH-53K or 60 CH-47 - not 60 CH-53K or 180 CH-47. Thus this arguement is moot.

If you´re looking at 180 frames you´ll all of a sudden need new airfield (bzw, the hangars for the CH-47 need to be modified as far as I´m aware, the gurrent CH-53 hangars don´t fit), more crew etc.

If you look at raw technical performance it is more than obvious that the CH-53K is a class better than the CH-47. And again: it might be very opportune for NATO to have to different helicopters available, with different capabilities.

Apparently Lookheed and Rheinmetall have confirmed to the German Armed Forces that the first CH-53K could be fielded in 2025 already, with training to start in the US much earlier.

I think those are very extreme numbers. Frankly, it is probably the case that 70 -47F’s vs. 60 -53K’s might be more accurate. The -47 also has the future upgradable capacity for the T-408’s (which have, after all, already flown with/on it). Not my circus, not my money, but I would be hard pressed to identify what missions the Germans would need the extra -53K capabilities for (for that matter, I am not real sure why the Chinook couldn’t have been marinized for the USMC to save about 80 percent of the cost/delays vs. the gold-plated King Stallions). To my mind, the most significant benefit would be sea-based missions and corrosion resistance (vs. raw power/lift capability), but that is still…speculative long term for the -53K.

I haven’t seen that documented, anyway, and if said capabilities were exclusionary I am not sure why they are entertaining a Boeing bid anyway.

The RAF marinized some of their Chinooks enough to use them in action from HMS Ark Royal and HMS Ocean in Iraq in 2003.
Also in other operations and exercises.

I once read one of the reasons the German army/air force used the CH53G's in Afghanistan was because of their excess power that came in handy in the hot and high.

I'm assuming the -47 didn't have that issue either and it was just the other German helos (NH90?) that couldn't perform as well in Afghanistan?

ReverseFlow wrote:

I once read one of the reasons the German army/air force used the CH53G's in Afghanistan was because of their excess power that came in handy in the hot and high.

I'm assuming the -47 didn't have that issue either and it was just the other German helos (NH90?) that couldn't perform as well in Afghanistan?

While kind of a puff piece, this article talks about the CH-47 operating in the Himalayas.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newind ... 327444.amp

Probably helpful in hauling howitzer up those mountain passes when the road freezes over.

bt

texl1649 wrote:

I think those are very extreme numbers. Frankly, it is probably the case that 70 -47F’s vs. 60 -53K’s might be more accurate.

Why do you think that?

I offered the price from an order from the US government in 2020, and another in 2021. Same customer, very close dates. If you have a better set of comparisons, lets seem them

Links already shown above.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

There is no doubt in my mind the 53K is more capable, but at what price is it worth it to the Germans? The commonality with the French/other Chinook operators seems like a no brainer, with the industrial partnerships Boing et al. Have lined up, unless money is just no object now to them.

I understood the 53K cost $97M with no support, spare parts, nothing.
A Chinook costs under $30M each.

Would you rather have 3 Chinooks, or one CH-53K?

Issue with this: you won´t get three times the number of helicopters. Its about 60 CH-53K or 60 CH-47 - not 60 CH-53K or 180 CH-47. Thus this arguement is moot.

If you´re looking at 180 frames you´ll all of a sudden need new airfield (bzw, the hangars for the CH-47 need to be modified as far as I´m aware, the gurrent CH-53 hangars don´t fit), more crew etc.

I don't know what you wrote it true. You're sure the Luftwaffe, after decades of declining equipment numbers, doesn't have any spare hangers? It's so bad they will have to build new airfields??

Either way, hangers cost much less than helicopters. Also, maybe the Luftwaffe could use the spare money to buy parts to get their super-bad readiness rates up. My point is that the fact that a CH-53K costs 2x or 3x that of a Chinook ought to matter when considering which one to buy. Even in a world where Germany has increasing military budgets, it still matters.

kitplane01 wrote:

I don't know what you wrote it true. You're sure the Luftwaffe, after decades of declining equipment numbers, doesn't have any spare hangers? It's so bad they will have to build new airfields??

Either way, hangers cost much less than helicopters. Also, maybe the Luftwaffe could use the spare money to buy parts to get their super-bad readiness rates up. My point is that the fact that a CH-53K costs 2x or 3x that of a Chinook ought to matter when considering which one to buy. Even in a world where Germany has increasing military budgets, it still matters.

The number of (air) bases has been declining at more or less the same pace as equipment was declining. There isn´t much slack in the (air) base system which could easily take up a large number of additional equipment over and above what is currently employed.

I´m fully aware that a CH-47 has a lower fly-away-price compared to a CH-53K. Even Lookheed Martin & Rheinmetall state this. However, as stated several times already, price is only part of the consideration. Technical capability / performance, system resilience (single European fleet vs. two types) etc. are all part of the decision, too. We have no disagreement here, I´m just in the camp to say that price is not neessarily the deciding factor.

kitplane01 wrote:

I offered the price from an order from the US government in 2020, and another in 2021. Same customer, very close dates. If you have a better set of comparisons, lets seem them

This comparision doesn´t work. As far as I´m aware it is not a competition "here is the budget and offer us as much as you can" but "we want x helciopters, please make us an offer". Two totally different approaches.

bikerthai wrote:

Are they asking for more capabilities than the current fleet?

Yes: https://soldat-und-technik.de/2022/04/mobilitaet/31232/ch-53k-fruehere-verfuegbarkeit-fuer-die-bundeswehr-moeglich/

texl1649 wrote:

I haven’t seen that documented, anyway, and if said capabilities were exclusionary I am not sure why they are entertaining a Boeing bid anyway.

Easy. Allowing two competitors into your bid vs. a sole-source competition instantly shaves off quite a bit of your price tag. The art is to make sure both bidders think that they have a real chance to win the bid to come along with best packages possible. The winner is - at the end of the day - the tax payer.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

Easy. Allowing two competitors into your bid vs. a sole-source competition instantly shaves off quite a bit of your price tag. The art is to make sure both bidders think that they have a real chance to win the bid to come along with best packages possible. The winner is - at the end of the day - the tax payer.

Unless they are fixed price contracts, the tax payer usually get's screwed by the bidder who low balls his bid to add the capabilities on the back end with cost overruns once the bid is secured. Take the existing CH53K, the article below is probably generated because folks are looking at the massive delay and increase in cost.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... poor-idea/

bikerthai wrote:

What is the real requirement? I mean the current CH-47 is more than powerful enough to replace the existing German CH-53D capabilities.

Are they asking for more capabilities than the current fleet?

As for the cost difference. It is absolutely important. If you have to spend less up front for the frames, you can spend more on the back end for support, maintenance and training.

Even with a larger defense budget, saving money on one system allows you to buy other systems to fill out your short comings.

For example, the 5 P-8A are just the start. They will need more money to fill out the rest of the MMA fleet.

bt

Currently some german newspapers report that the German government has decided to go for the Chinook. E.g. a report of this German newspaper (Stuttgarter Zeitung) translated into English reads this:
" Shortly before the next major armament decision by the federal government, the clear favorite is choosen. According to information from our newspaper, an further advanced development of the CH-47F from the US aviation group Boeing is to become the new heavy transport helicopter for the Bundeswehr. A few weeks after the decision to buy F-35 fighter jets, the helicopter with a procurement volume of around 5.2 billion euros would be the second major order going to the USA. So far there is talk of about 60 CH-47F, the Air Force would like a few more "

The phrase "further advanced development" can only indicate that Germany will buy the new Block II Version.

kitplane01 wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I think those are very extreme numbers. Frankly, it is probably the case that 70 -47F’s vs. 60 -53K’s might be more accurate.

Why do you think that?

I offered the price from an order from the US government in 2020, and another in 2021. Same customer, very close dates. If you have a better set of comparisons, lets seem them

Links already shown above.

Sorry, I don’t question your math, just that I figure the Germans wouldn’t look to total uplift capacity, but rather a quantity of frames. 70 is my ballpark for a Chinook buy, just a swag. They don’t have the hanger/airfield capacity for a much larger fleet, imho.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

I´m fully aware that a CH-47 has a lower fly-away-price compared to a CH-53K. Even Lookheed Martin & Rheinmetall state this. However, as stated several times already, price is only part of the consideration. Technical capability / performance, system resilience (single European fleet vs. two types) etc. are all part of the decision, too. We have no disagreement here, I´m just in the camp to say that price is not neessarily the deciding factor.

We are only disagreeing on emphasis. A 2x or 3x price difference seems a very big deal to me.

Flying-Tiger wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

I offered the price from an order from the US government in 2020, and another in 2021. Same customer, very close dates. If you have a better set of comparisons, lets seem them

This comparision doesn´t work. As far as I´m aware it is not a competition "here is the budget and offer us as much as you can" but "we want x helciopters, please make us an offer". Two totally different approaches.

The comparison does work. We have a reasonable guess what a bare bones, no spare parts, no support unit cost for both aircraft are. I agree negotiations might change the price some .. but it's not going to make a 3x difference. No contract scheme or multiple bidders or clever salesmen words will do that.

Djlorry3 wrote:

Currently some german newspapers report that the German government has decided to go for the Chinook. E.g. a report of this German newspaper (Stuttgarter Zeitung) translated into English reads this:
" Shortly before the next major armament decision by the federal government, the clear favorite is choosen. According to information from our newspaper, an further advanced development of the CH-47F from the US aviation group Boeing is to become the new heavy transport helicopter for the Bundeswehr. A few weeks after the decision to buy F-35 fighter jets, the helicopter with a procurement volume of around 5.2 billion euros would be the second major order going to the USA. So far there is talk of about 60 CH-47F, the Air Force would like a few more "

That's a lot for 60 Chinooks. I assume there are support, training, and spare parts included. Think how much more a CH-53K would be.

The Chinook is far greater value for money than the King Stallion. I can see the Chinook having an easy victory in Germany.

The King Stallion has two advantages.
1) Fancy rotor folding to take up less than half the space on the ship compared to the Chinook.
2) Internal fuel tanks in the cabin and refueling probe allow for niche long flights. Israel probably needed this capability but really the V-22 is much better for this job.

Both the Chinook and King Stallion have roughly the same cargo bay size. The King Stallions extra lift capacity gives no advantage when transporting only troops inside.

RJMAZ wrote:

The Chinook is far greater value for money than the King Stallion. I can see the Chinook having an easy victory in Germany.

The King Stallion has two advantages.
1) Fancy rotor folding to take up less than half the space on the ship compared to the Chinook.
2) Internal fuel tanks in the cabin and refueling probe allow for niche long flights. Israel probably needed this capability but really the V-22 is much better for this job.

Both the Chinook and King Stallion have roughly the same cargo bay size. The King Stallions extra lift capacity gives no advantage when transporting only troops inside.

Germany won't be using these helicopters on ships though, so advantage 1) is moot.

And you can have the CH-47 with the external budged fuel tanks for extended range, like what the MH-47 and Canadian CH-147F's have, and a number of foreign users have picked up that option.

Here is an article that describes the digital advantage of the CH-53K, and how it interfaces with the networked battle force concept. The US Marines are using it in this context.

https://sldinfo.com/2022/04/the-germans ... er-choice/

Avatar2go wrote:

Here is an article that describes the digital advantage of the CH-53K, and how it interfaces with the networked battle force concept. The US Marines are using it in this context.

https://sldinfo.com/2022/04/the-germans ... er-choice/

Thx, but I actually LOL’ed at all of the catchy buzz words in that article;

Much like the F-35 is built the ground up differently from legacy aircraft which enables them to anchor a digitally enabled warfighting force, the CH-53K is built from the ground up to operate in this context. Neither the CH-53E or the legacy U.S. Army medium-lift helicopters are.

One of those capabilities is the new cockpit in the aircraft and how digital interoperability and integration with the evolution of the Marine combat elements more broadly is facilitated by the operation of a 21st century cockpit. The cockpits are very different and fit in with a general trend for 21st century aircraft of having digital cockpits with combat flexibility management built in.

Because the flight crew is operating a digital aircraft, many of the functions which have to be done manually in the E, are done by the aircraft itself. This allows the cockpit crew to focus on combat management and force insertion tasks. And the systems within the cockpit allow for the crew to play this function.

This means that the K and its onboard Marines and cargo can be integrated into a digitally interoperable force. This means as well that the K could provide a lead role for the insertion package, or provide for a variety of support roles beyond simply bringing Marines and cargo to the fight. They are bringing information as well which can be distributed to the combat force in the area of interest.

It’s a heavy lift helicopter, for goodness sakes, not a stealth strike fighter. Ultimately, it’s a cargo hauler, not a combat aircraft. CSAR missions imply certainly some combat (I think they have around 15-20 G’s configured for this, today), but the fancy C2 integrations with drones etc. are not, to my knowledge, part of the RFP for Germany for the STH.

If you wanted all new comms, integration fancy stuff etc etc they could do it like UPS did with their A300s.
Onviously costs a bit but not impossible.

https://simpleflying.com/ups-retrofits- ... bus-a300s/

texl1649 wrote:

Thx, but I actually LOL’ed at all of the catchy buzz words in that article;

It’s a heavy lift helicopter, for goodness sakes, not a stealth strike fighter. Ultimately, it’s a cargo hauler, not a combat aircraft. CSAR missions imply certainly some combat (I think they have around 15-20 G’s configured for this, today), but the fancy C2 integrations with drones etc. are not, to my knowledge, part of the RFP for Germany for the STH.

It's just the reality of combat today. Having the ability to network with other assets is a key feature that everyone seeks. These same things were said about the F-35, but now the value of that interconnectedness is clear. This is true for naval ships, tanker & cargo aircraft, and ground assets as well, they are all being updated to make them work better together as a joint force. So it will be a consideration for the Germans in this selection.

Avatar2go wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Thx, but I actually LOL’ed at all of the catchy buzz words in that article;

It’s a heavy lift helicopter, for goodness sakes, not a stealth strike fighter. Ultimately, it’s a cargo hauler, not a combat aircraft. CSAR missions imply certainly some combat (I think they have around 15-20 G’s configured for this, today), but the fancy C2 integrations with drones etc. are not, to my knowledge, part of the RFP for Germany for the STH.

It's just the reality of combat today. Having the ability to network with other assets is a key feature that everyone seeks. These same things were said about the F-35, but now the value of that interconnectedness is clear. This is true for naval ships, tanker & cargo aircraft, and ground assets as well, they are all being updated to make them work better together as a joint force. So it will be a consideration for the Germans in this selection.

The issue is that new capabilities always come with a cost/risk. Take for instance the new rotor blades on the block II F-model chinooks. Shelved, because of vibration issues.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... n-testing/

Also, the Germans…don’t have a fleet of stealthy drones to work with the potential CH-53K transports (umm, neither does the USMC). So…great, it has a radio, but it is not a positive contribution today. Finally, the Chinook of course has digital flight control, and plenty of modern communications itself (note there is a fleet for SOCOM too). I just laughed that the article seemed to spew buzz word after buzz word, without any…actual specifics.

Now, from an actual capabilities perspective, including with FCAS considerations, but more importantly imho, the inflight refueling/standard pallet stuff the K does offer comparatively, this article (while a bit old now) does a good job explaining what the K brings, qualitatively/capability wise to the table vs. the Chinook for the Germans, imho.

https://defense.info/defense-systems/co ... rman-case/

Since you mention the US Navy networking, they bought into the LCS platform with its modular weapons packages, which were never developed to operational status thus never deployed and now the platform is going away, which was needed, the platform or the modules? How about shore bombardment for the Zumm class destroyer, now they will end up with 3 multi-billion ships with little to no mission leaving them with finding creative ways to use them in the fleet.
We are talking about programs that billions were spent on for capability they will not get, touting networking on a transport helicopter as a selling point may work for the US where they throw billions at paper ideas, but other countries not so much. Imagine hacking that network and being able to pinpoint all the logistical assets? Possible, naw, just as it was not possible to hack live drone feed because the designers did not think such would be helpful to an enemy.

texl1649 wrote:

his article (while a bit old now) does a good job explaining what the K brings, qualitatively/capability wise to the table vs. the Chinook for the Germans, imho.

https://defense.info/defense-systems/co ... rman-case/

He lost me when he imply thay the CH-47 is not capable if arial refueling. The point about medium lift vs heavy lift may be valid, but I though the article was supposed to compare the too. Turns out its another promotional piece.

bt

par13del wrote:

Since you mention the US Navy networking, they bought into the LCS platform with its modular weapons packages, which were never developed to operational status thus never deployed and now the platform is going away, which was needed, the platform or the modules? How about shore bombardment for the Zumm class destroyer, now they will end up with 3 multi-billion ships with little to no mission leaving them with finding creative ways to use them in the fleet.

To clarify, the LCS is not going away, just the ASW mission package, which was not successful and will be taken up by the Constellation class. There are still 10 SUW packages on order, as well as 24 MCM packages, as well as the new NSM package, as well as the SSMM package. Congress is very unlikely to allow the retirement of the 6 new LCS that were proposed. This year, they blocked the retirement of the 3 that were proposed, even though those had some cause.

The Zumwalt class suffered the cost death spiral, high cost caused drop in production, which raised the cost further. That did not happen with LCS, for which cost decreased during production. The 3 Zumwalts still will find a use as hypersonic missile platforms.

Seems to me this competition boils down to two factors.

Do you want the higher capabilities of 3 engines vs 2, vs higher cost (including maintenance)?

Or do you value performance vs interoperability (including swapping pilots as well a spare parts with your friends and neighbors).

Everything else is just muddies the water.

by

bikerthai wrote:

He lost me when he imply thay the CH-47 is not capable if arial refueling. The point about medium lift vs heavy lift may be valid, but I though the article was supposed to compare the too. Turns out its another promotional piece.

bt

I think he was referring to the fact that only the special ops models have the boom, and it's a bit ungainly. But certainly could be applied to the German model if needed. To make it worthwhile, that may also need larger fuel tanks, as the special ops have as well.

Avatar2go wrote:

par13del wrote:

Since you mention the US Navy networking, they bought into the LCS platform with its modular weapons packages, which were never developed to operational status thus never deployed and now the platform is going away, which was needed, the platform or the modules? How about shore bombardment for the Zumm class destroyer, now they will end up with 3 multi-billion ships with little to no mission leaving them with finding creative ways to use them in the fleet.

To clarify, the LCS is not going away, just the ASW mission package, which was not successful and will be taken up by the Constellation class. There are still 10 SUW packages on order, as well as 24 MCM packages, as well as the new NSM package, as well as the SSMM package. Congress is very unlikely to allow the retirement of the 6 new LCS that were proposed. This year, they blocked the retirement of the 3 that were proposed, even though those had some cause.

The Zumwalt class suffered the cost death spiral, high cost caused drop in production, which raised the cost further. That did not happen with LCS, for which cost decreased during production. The 3 Zumwalts still will find a use as hypersonic missile platforms.

The Navy wants to cut 9 LCS now, probably more later. Because they suck.

I gotta say if you're a fan of the LCS, you're the only one who's not a congressmen.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/ ... e-mission/

kitplane01 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

par13del wrote:

Since you mention the US Navy networking, they bought into the LCS platform with its modular weapons packages, which were never developed to operational status thus never deployed and now the platform is going away, which was needed, the platform or the modules? How about shore bombardment for the Zumm class destroyer, now they will end up with 3 multi-billion ships with little to no mission leaving them with finding creative ways to use them in the fleet.

To clarify, the LCS is not going away, just the ASW mission package, which was not successful and will be taken up by the Constellation class. There are still 10 SUW packages on order, as well as 24 MCM packages, as well as the new NSM package, as well as the SSMM package. Congress is very unlikely to allow the retirement of the 6 new LCS that were proposed. This year, they blocked the retirement of the 3 that were proposed, even though those had some cause.

The Zumwalt class suffered the cost death spiral, high cost caused drop in production, which raised the cost further. That did not happen with LCS, for which cost decreased during production. The 3 Zumwalts still will find a use as hypersonic missile platforms.

The Navy wants to cut 9 LCS now, probably more later. Because they suck.

I gotta say if you're a fan of the LCS, you're the only one who's not a congressmen.

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2022/ ... e-mission/

Again to clarify, the 3 were already requested last year, but denied by Congress. Now there are 6 more requests added to the 3, but very unlikely Congress will approve that either. It's just so the USN can spend money elsewhere. But the LCS are not an impediment to that. The cut represents 2 squadrons out of 5, but as Congress has pointed out, the US is better off with those squadrons than without, until the Constellations come on-line.

The LCS are a misunderstood concept, and have attracted a lot of criticism, but they are in service every day and have conducted many missions. It will be hard for the USN to discount that when questioned by Congress, especially in the light of diminishing ship count. LCS are not true frigates, but they can carry out many of the low-end duties of a frigate, which is what they were designed to do. They were intended to span 3 classes of ships, the Cyclone class patrol boat, the Avenger class minesweeper, and the Perry class frigate. They work well in the first two roles, but are not armed sufficiently for the latter, in the current threat environment. That's why we now have the Constellation class frigate. But the LCS will continue to carry out the other two roles, and the lesser frigate roles. It's a fully blue-water ship, has escort & pursuit speed, and can serve around the world, either as standalone in low-threat environments, or as part of a strike group in high-threat environments.

The Taiwanese see LCS in the same light, they may acquire them as fill-ins until their own frigate program is rolling, as the USN retires them.

Gilday started as CNO in August 2019, per the link below there were 5 deployments, yes just FIVE, prior to him being CNO. LCS-1 was commisioned in 2008, LCS-2 in Jan 10, LCS-3 9/12, LCS-4 5/14, LCS-6 12/15, LCS-7 10/16, LCS-8 9/16, LCS-9 12/17, LCS-10 10/17, LCS-11 11/18, LCS-12 2/18, LCS-13 1/19, LCS-14 5/18, LCS-15 8/19, LCS-15 2/19, and LCS-16 3/19. So 16 ships commisioned with a total of 50 ship years of service had 5 deployments - QUITE REMARKABLE
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ployments/

In 2021 USNI reported that SIX LCS's would be deployed concurrently by the end of the year, a record. 6 of 18 LCS's deploy in 1 year, what are the other 12 doing as they had a ton of service years so it should be coming up to speed.
https://news.usni.org/2021/06/28/six-li ... operations

There have been embarrasments, one had to be towed home after a propulsion system failure at the Panama Canal, there is at least another tow home in this. The 9th Independence class dropped its combining gear during acceptance tests. It is now decided it is too long and expensive to replace the gear on the 8 prior, instead they want to be decommisioned. Lots of the travails are outlined in this War on the Rocks article.

https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/lesso ... mbat-ship/

Between the DDG-1000, the LCS program, and the Ford taking many years to finally be almost ready are 3 great examples of how NOT to do a program.

The relevance of the LCS to this German buy is to debunk the idea of getting new and or enhanced technologies that have not yet matured. The LCS program was supposed to ensure no new US Navy frigate, now thanks to that botched program, the Constellation class is now a thing being funded.
If Germany selects the CH-53K and it is delayed for a few years resulting in "lease buys" of Chinooks in the interim it would follow the LCS example.
We know that a lot of US military doctrine was / is driven by the "relationship" between the US Army and the Air Force, what is that relationship like in the German Army, can the Army have long range arty, local SAM's, rely on the Air Force to establish dominance before the Army can do anything?

JayinKitsap wrote:

Gilday started as CNO in August 2019, per the link below there were 5 deployments, yes just FIVE, prior to him being CNO. LCS-1 was commisioned in 2008, LCS-2 in Jan 10, LCS-3 9/12, LCS-4 5/14, LCS-6 12/15, LCS-7 10/16, LCS-8 9/16, LCS-9 12/17, LCS-10 10/17, LCS-11 11/18, LCS-12 2/18, LCS-13 1/19, LCS-14 5/18, LCS-15 8/19, LCS-15 2/19, and LCS-16 3/19. So 16 ships commisioned with a total of 50 ship years of service had 5 deployments - QUITE REMARKABLE
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ployments/

In 2021 USNI reported that SIX LCS's would be deployed concurrently by the end of the year, a record. 6 of 18 LCS's deploy in 1 year, what are the other 12 doing as they had a ton of service years so it should be coming up to speed.
https://news.usni.org/2021/06/28/six-li ... operations

There have been embarrasments, one had to be towed home after a propulsion system failure at the Panama Canal, there is at least another tow home in this. The 9th Independence class dropped its combining gear during acceptance tests. It is now decided it is too long and expensive to replace the gear on the 8 prior, instead they want to be decommisioned. Lots of the travails are outlined in this War on the Rocks article.

https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/lesso ... mbat-ship/

Between the DDG-1000, the LCS program, and the Ford taking many years to finally be almost ready are 3 great examples of how NOT to do a program.

Gilday and the USNI article were referring to forward deployments in overseas theaters. There have been steady deployments within their home and adjacent fleets. You can observe this in their deployment histories. The lack of early forward deployments has been due to delays in mission packages.

Further the USN standard policy for a 6 ship squadron is 2 forward deployed, 2 home deployed, and 2 in maintenance availabilities. Thus for the two operational squadrons of Independence thus far, 4 deployed forward would be normal. They are pushing it to 6 as the third squadron becomes operational.

The Freedoms are scheduled for the first forward deployment to the Middle East this year. That was dependent on the combining gear fix and the availability of mission packages.

The propulsion gear failure on the Independence and early Freedom class were due to operator error. For later Freedom class with the Renk gear, there is a latent defect for which Lockheed & Renk are financially responsible. The fix has been conducted and certified on Minneapolis and Cooperstown. Newer Freedoms will have the fix, older ones will receive it if not retired.

As to Zumwalt, I discussed that already. Ford class had 20+ new technologies and it has taken time to work out the bugs. But it is operationally sound now and is the most advanced carrier in existence. Gilday has said they would not bite off so much at once in future vessels.

par13del wrote:

The relevance of the LCS to this German buy is to debunk the idea of getting new and or enhanced technologies that have not yet matured. The LCS program was supposed to ensure no new US Navy frigate, now thanks to that botched program, the Constellation class is now a thing being funded.
If Germany selects the CH-53K and it is delayed for a few years resulting in "lease buys" of Chinooks in the interim it would follow the LCS example.
We know that a lot of US military doctrine was / is driven by the "relationship" between the US Army and the Air Force, what is that relationship like in the German Army, can the Army have long range arty, local SAM's, rely on the Air Force to establish dominance before the Army can do anything?

The Germans have to make their own decision, as to what is best for them. I was only pointing out that the CH-53K has many advancements as a new platform, and is the more capable. But that does not necessarily make it the best choice. The CH-47 has a long and storied career, and is a valid choice as well. It just depends on the missions the Germans define for it, and which platform best addresses those missions. For the USMC and Israelis, it was the CH-53K. It may or may not be for the Germans.

For the LCS, the USN is moving on to a more advanced platform in the Constellation. Both are/were new hulls and designs. The LCS was designed for a mission that devolved with the peace dividend, but has evolved again with China. But still has utility in the roles for which it was designed.

Just a thought.
The Bundeswehr got the CH-53G from 1972. The CH-47 had first flight in 1961.
So I'm assuming when the Bundeswehr got the -53G the -47 was also available.
Anyone know why the -53G was chosen back then 50 years ago?