Matt308
Glock Perfection
And the US is leaning towards procuring another 200-300 of them? That doesn't sound good Adler.
My favorite helicopter...if only a bit underused
- Thread starter MacArther
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From my understand they are not building new ones but upgrading older ones into a new model.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
The Army doesn't use any CH-53E do they? Those are more powerful with greater payload capacity than 47s. New model CH-53K, when comes online, will be truly impressive. Supposed to have 3 osprey engines... 18,000shp!
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
Is the lift capacity of the CH-53E more than the Chinook or is it that the Chinook has more ability to mount multiple cargo hooks that is keeping it in service?
No the US Army has not used the the CH-53 or a version of it, since the Vietnam war. The Chinook replaced them.
The CH-47F Chinook has a load capacity of 27,000lb. The CH-53E has a load capacity of 32,000lb. The reason the army likes the Chinook better is for several main reasons the Chinook actually has a longer cargo area than the CH-53. The Chinook is about 25ft longer, a farther range of 1259mi (without ferry tanks or external tanks) compared to the CH-53E's 600mi, and the fact that the Chinook does not have a tail rotor allowing all power to be used for lift and thrust.
Both are great aircraft. The Chinook is better suited for the Army's needs and the CH-53E better for the Airforce and Marines.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
I think that we are talking about two different procurements here, Adler. I think Congress just approved CH-47s for the Army as part of their regular fleet supplements. Of which I believe 25 or so are new airframes and the remaining (25 or so?) are refurbs.
What I'm referring to is the next generation SAR "vehicle". MV-22, MH-53, MH-47 and I think even a BlackHawk derivative is up for proposal. I don't think that any decision has been made yet, but I recall that it was a hundred and a half or so in order potential.
Your comments on maintenance being a nightmare caught my attention for such a large procurement and a mission whose sortie rate is so important.
I did just read an artical saying that 400+ CH-47F's (the lastest Chinook varient) have been ordered as well as a new MH-47 version. The new Blackhawk is the UH-60M and production on it started a few years ago. Not only are they building new UH-60M's but they are also converting older airframes to the new standard.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Wow that many for SAR or a combination of both programs. Good for Boeing stock.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
I don't know about the multiple cargo mounts, but the CH-53E has a slightly higher payload capacity. New version of the CH-53E is coming out in a few years that will make the current heavy lift helos look weak.
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
Okay, interesting to see what happens to the CH-47 when those come out...
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Its soo hard to shoot down though, and i think it would have made a good low level version of the Spetre, 12000 ft and a couple of miniguns on the side would have been devestating
Nope for the regular Army. The CH-47F is for the regular army and the MH-47 (not sure letter varient for it) is for the Spec Ops.
Wont change a thing for the Army. The Chinook is better suited for the roles that the Army requires. I think the CH-53 is a better aircraft overall but it is not what the Army needs or wants.
Absolutely not. The Chinook is not hard to shoot down at all. It is actually easier than a Blackhawk, Huey, or Apache.
It would have been a failure as a low level version of the Spectre as well. You know why?
Answer: SAMs
It is too slow and would be even worse of a target at 12,000ft. I dont believe the Chinook has a cieling of 12,000ft anyhow. I think it is more like 8,000ft.
Here is a comparison of Cielings for modern helicopters (only a few):
UH-60L Blackhawk: 19,150ft
UH-1 Iroquois (Huey): 19,390ft
AH-64 Apache: 21,000ft
CH-47 Chinook: 8,500ft
CH-53E Super Stallion: 18,500ft
AH-1W Cobra: 12,500ft
Eurocopter Tiger: 13,120ft
Super Puma: 19,750ft
Mi-24 Hind: 14,750ft
NH-90: 9,000ft (probably higher though)
Westland Lynx: 10,000ft
Ofcourse all of this depends on temperature and weather conditions.
In the end, how high a helcopter flies is really unimportant when it comes to military aviation because the kingdom of the helicopter is at NOE alltitudes. The only time a military helicopter would want to fly that high is when they are flying IFR or going over mountains. When we deployed to Kosovo we had to fly over the mountains over Albania and had to climb to 10,000 ft to get over them. That was pretty cool. We were IFR anhow because we flying through other countries airspace the whole damn day.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
if you ask me helicopter gunships like the AH-64 are fine and dandy but the AH-47 is a flawed concept, leave that to the AC-130!
Exactly thats what I said.
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
It depends I suppose though, what sort of fighting you are doing. I think it might be perfect for fighting in Iraq as a light AC-130 that can hover... I don't know what the rest of you think but I thought a system like that could be used for pinpoint demolition of buildings...
That is how you get killed in Iraq. I flew over 650 combat hours in Iraq, trust me I know when I say that if you stay in one spot you die. You have to keep moving and keep moving in an unpredictable way. You dont want to hover over a city.
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
That's just begging for an RPG to rip your helo apart. Just read an article that got hit w/ one flying low in the Marine Corps Aviation Assoc. Held together though, and allowed the pilots to autorotate it down. Luckily, nobody one board was killed.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
