• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

CH-53K ground tests

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
After reading the article I think this has more to do with PA congressional politics than anything....
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Wouldn't there be some problems fitting them on LHA/LHD's with the dual rotors?
More about the blade folding mechanism than the rotors themselves. Normally, a Chinook would have to fold its rotors manually but the Army's MH-47 special ops version has a blade folding mechanism.

Would love to see a bigger Chinook with the new engines the 53K is getting and a combining gearbox / transmission that could handle the power.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
More about the blade folding mechanism than the rotors themselves. Normally, a Chinook would have to fold its rotors manually but the Army's MH-47 special ops version has a blade folding mechanism..
I was thinking about the footprint, taking up a good chunk more deck space when takeing off or landing than a 53, limiting the number you can utilize along with the rest of the air wing.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
I was thinking about the footprint, taking up a good chunk more deck space when takeing off or landing than a 53, limiting the number you can utilize along with the rest of the air wing.
Good question. I figured the 53 was wider due to its massive main rotor (79 ft compared to the 60 ft of the CH-47) but what I did not expect was the length when turning to be the same for both: 99 ft

And while we are here, here are the numbers for the H-60 and the V-22.

21994

21995

21996

21998
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Interesting that the “stowed length” of the 53 is still about 9 feet longer than I assume the Shithook would be if it had a folding rotor head. Wouldn’t have guessed that.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
"Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Co., Stratford, Connecticut, is awarded a $1,126,216,626 modification (P00026) to previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-16-C-0048). This modification provides for the procurement of 12 Lot II and Lot III low-rate initial production CH-53K aircraft, including programmatic support, logistics support, and peculiar support equipment."

Clif notes:. LM was just awarded $1.1B to build 12 LRIP 53Ks.
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
"Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Co., Stratford, Connecticut, is awarded a $1,126,216,626 modification (P00026) to previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-16-C-0048). This modification provides for the procurement of 12 Lot II and Lot III low-rate initial production CH-53K aircraft, including programmatic support, logistics support, and peculiar support equipment."
That’s a hell of a unit cost 😝
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
That’s a hell of a unit cost 😝
That's also inaccurate math as the contract includes more than just airplanes. I'd wager there's a lot of people, NRE, and tooling rolled up in to the cost of those airplanes as well as the PM, log, and PSE
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
I'd swear every O-5 and above at NHA was paid by LM to say this👆. You could NOT get one of them to say "Sikorsky" by itself. So awkward.
Expect the Sikorsky brand to be completely squashed in coming years. Normal corporate acquisition playbook!
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
Expect the Sikorsky brand to be completely squashed in coming years. Normal corporate acquisition playbook!
You think? Sikorsky has strong brand recognition and the weirdness of FVL competitors (LM+Bell vs Boeing+Sikorksy) may make them keep Sikorsky as a wholly owned subsidiary for a little while. Plus, it's been a long time (ever?) since Sikorsky was truly independent as they were part of UTC before the LM acquisition.
 

ChuckMK23

Instructor, Flight.
pilot
You think? Sikorsky has strong brand recognition and the weirdness of FVL competitors (LM+Bell vs Boeing+Sikorksy) may make them keep Sikorsky as a wholly owned subsidiary for a little while. Plus, it's been a long time (ever?) since Sikorsky was truly independent as they were part of UTC before the LM acquisition.
Agree - but never underestimate corporate ego!
 
Top