Avatar feed
Responses: 3
LTC Stephen F.
2
2
0
Thanks PO1 Tony Holland for sharing the news that USMC ground forces may well be lifted into battle zones by the upgraded CH-53 "K" model helicopter.

"The new "K" model CH-53 helicopter is engineered to lift 27,000 pounds, travel 110 nautical miles, before staying 30 minutes on station and then be able to return under high hot conditions. The existing “E” model CH-53 can only carry 9,000 pounds.

“This contract will benefit our Marine Corps’ ‘heavy lifters’ for decades to come. Future Marines, not even born yet, will be flying this helicopter well into the future,” U.S. Marine Corps. Col. Hank Vanderborght, Naval Air Systems Command program manager for Heavy Lift Helicopters program said in service statement.

The idea with the helicopter is to engineer a new aircraft with much greater performance compared to the existing CH-53 E or “Echo” model aircraft designed in the 80’s.

Higher temperatures and higher altitudes create a circumstance wherein the decreased air-pressure makes it more difficult for helicopters to fly and carry payloads. “High-Hot” conditions are described as being able to operate at more than 6,000 ft at temperatures greater than 90-degrees Fahrenheit.

An on-board refueling system is engineered into the helicopter to extend mission range in high-risk areas too dangerous for a C-130 to operate, developers said.

The requirement for the “K” model CH-53 emerged out of a Marine Corps study which looked at the combat aviation elements of a Marine Air-Ground Task Force, or MAGTF.

Engineers with the “K” program are using a handful of new technologies to achieve greater lift, speed and performance with the helicopter, including the integration of a new, more powerful GE 38 turboshaft engine for the aircraft.

“Fuel consumption of the engine is 25-percent improved. On a pure technology level it is about a 25-percent improvement in fuel efficiency,” Dr. Michael Torok, Sikorsky’s CH-53K program vice president, told Scout Warrior in a previous interview.

The helicopter is also being built with lighter-weight composite materials for the airframe and the rotorblades, materials able to equal or exceed the performance of traditional metals at a much lighter weight, said Torok.

“Technology allowed us to design a largely all-composite skinned airframe. There are some primary frames titanium and aluminum. Beam structure and all the skins are all composite. Fourth generation rotorblades are a combination of new airfoils, taper and a modification of the tip deflection of the blade. It is an integrated cuff and the tip geometries are modified to get additional performance,” Torok added.

The helicopter will also be configured with Directional Infrared Countermeasures, or DIRCM, a high-tech laser-jammer designed to throw incoming missiles off course. DIRCM uses sensor technology to identify and thwart fast-approaching enemy fire such as shoulder-fired weapons.

The CH-53 K uses a split-torque transmission design that transfers high-power, high-speed engine output to lower-speed, high-torque rotor drive in a weight efficient manner.

“With the split torque you take the high-speed inputs from the engine and you divide it up into multiple pieces with multiple gear sets that run in parallel,” Torok said.

The K model will be a “fly by wire” capable helicopter and also use the latest in what’s called conditioned-based maintenance, a method wherein diagnostic sensors are put in place to monitor systems on the aircraft in order to better predict and avert points of mechanical failure."
COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC Ivan Raiklin, Esq. Capt Seid Waddell Capt Tom Brown CW5 (Join to see) SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT MSG Andrew White SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL SFC William Farrell SSgt Robert Marx SSgt (Join to see) TSgt Joe C. SGT John " Mac " McConnell SP5 Mark Kuzinski SPC (Join to see) SrA Christopher Wright Cpl Joshua Caldwell
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Data Systems Chief
1
1
0
But then what would airlift downed Chinooks out of the AO? Plus, we have the 53 because our needs differ from those of the Army. We go in hard, fast, and with a lot of gear in order to sustain offensive operations so that the Army can move in and clean up what we've pushed through. Like any other aircraft, initial costs are greater than they will be once they go into mass production. Plus it's a lot more effective for us to carry multiple vehicles and artillery sling-loaded from a few birds rather than one at a time with every helo we have. We aren't that big, ya know
(1)
Comment
(0)
SPC Anthony Schepis
SPC Anthony Schepis
>1 y
That doesn't justify the outrageous cost of this helicopter. A CH-47 can already sling load any size howitzer and carry plenty of cargo. No one else is buying the CH-53K because of the high price so we will end up spending a shit ton of money in the long run. Airlifting a downed CH-47 is not a requirement or necessary.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Data Systems Chief
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
SPC Anthony Schepis You are correct: A CH-47 can do those things. However, the 53E, and now moreso the 53K, can carry a lot more. The ability to internally carry a HMMWV helps a bunch, which means we can now carry a vic and an M777 with one bird, or three or four Humvees. Put plainly, the CH-47 doesn't suit our needs and never will, and it's a lot easier and more cost-effective to retrain pilots on a similar airframe. You are mistaken about us being the only users, too. At the moment, Israel plans to buy a bunch as well. We are quite used to saving money by taking hand-me-down birds and other equipment, but we aren't so foolish as to decrease our lethality or force-projection capabilities by taking something from the Army that is better suited for their operations than for our own. Likewise, the 53 is perfect for us, but wouldn't be good for the Army, as you guys have greater numbers than we do, which means you can more easily spread the load logistically; plus you frequently need mountainside insertions/extracts, which can only be performed by a tandem rotor helicopter (which I've always thought is pretty badass, by the way).
(1)
Reply
(0)
SPC Anthony Schepis
SPC Anthony Schepis
>1 y
Same total lift amount with 228 CH-47 for 9 billion vs 156 CH-53K for 25 billion. Cost per flight hour for CH-47 average is 6415 vs CH-53E 20000 and CH-53K planned to be around 10000 but I doubt it will be that low. I don't know about you but it makes sense to me to go with CH-47. Marines can buy brand new and no Army hand me downs. Also Israel has not made a decision on the CH-53K. A bunch of senators and representatives sent Israel a letter begging them to buy the over priced CH-53K because they know no one wants it.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Data Systems Chief
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
SPC Anthony Schepis I can hardly say that a 35,000lb (CH-53K payload capacity is the same as a 24,000lb (CH-47F) capacity (not to mention the greater cargo space inside). The flight hour cost is the tradeoff for a big helicopter that can carry everything short of a tank. It's still $10,000 cheaper than than the 53E, and we'll actually have parts for maintenance now instead of having to scrounge around for some from museum aircraft. Believe me, if we could get the same job done with a Chinook, we probably would have made that switch in 2009 when the 53Es were supposed to be retired.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Anthony Schepis
0
0
0
Yes, another over priced waste of money program. Could buy two Chinooks for one CH-53K and they wonder why we have no money for parts and training.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close