Well this is an interesting twist! CH-47 for Marines?
Wouldn't there be some problems fitting them on LHA/LHD's with the dual rotors?
Last edited:
Well this is an interesting twist! CH-47 for Marines?
"Marine Corps spokesman says everything is A-ok. Also, there are no morale problems in 2nd Mardiv."
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..
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.
That’s a hell of a unit cost ?"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 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 PSEThat’s a hell of a unit cost ?
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.Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Co., Stratford, Connecticut, ...
Expect the Sikorsky brand to be completely squashed in coming years. Normal corporate acquisition playbook!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.
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.Expect the Sikorsky brand to be completely squashed in coming years. Normal corporate acquisition playbook!
Agree - but never underestimate corporate ego!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.