• 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

USMC CH-53E Super Stallion Fleet Is In Inexcusably Horrible Disrepair

P

Pags

N/A
pilot
Not shocking in the least. the 53 is an old airframe based on older tech (generation before the H-60). I remember hearing that they're the most expensive airframe to fly in the USN/USMC due to maintenance costs. Because of these two points they're hard and expensive to maintain which means they can be down for a long time due to repair time and parts availability. My peers who flew 53s got far fewer hours than the 60 guys; I'd guess 200-300hrs less. The USMC fleet seemed to be healthier than USN fleet because the war demands gave their pilots more hours and their squadrons parts priority. The USMC birds have definitely been flown hard and put away wet because of the wars. My Airboss would tell a story of a set of 53s flying off into AFG and when flew back on a few months later all four birds were hard down as soon as they shutdown due to their material state from high fly rate and austere ops.
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
One idea that I hope the Marine Corps is considering - is to take retired USAF MH-53M out of the boneyard, download the special ops equipment (terrain following radar as an example) to save weight, and press these into service. These airfares were meticulously maintained and are in pristine storage (war ready).

Performance would not be what an Echo could do lift wise but it would give the Marines some breathing room operationally until they can completely reset the current fleet of CH-53E's and start getting the King Stallion in production.
 
hscs

hscs

Registered User
pilot
ChuckMK23 said:
One idea that I hope the Marine Corps is considering - is to take retired USAF MH-53M out of the boneyard, download the special ops equipment (terrain following radar as an example) to save weight, and press these into service. These airfares were meticulously maintained and are in pristine storage (war ready).
Click to expand...
I will say that the MH53M fleet was in similar shape before they retired their airframes. Saw it first hand.
 
Swanee

Swanee

Cereal Killer
pilot
None
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
Meaning these were in similar war-weary shape?
Click to expand...

Well. A lot of hard hours at 100' AGL towing a minesweeping sled over the salt water. An MH-53 bro told a while ago that their airframes were aging quickly, and their corrosion control program could not keep up.
 
P

Pags

N/A
pilot
Swanee said:
Well. A lot of hard hours at 100' AGL towing a minesweeping sled over the salt water. An MH-53 bro told a while ago that their airframes were aging quickly, and their corrosion control program could not keep up.
Click to expand...
You're confusing your MH-53s. Chuck was talking about former USAF pave lows.

But the USN 53 fleet isn't healthy either
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Swanee said:
Well. A lot of hard hours at 100' AGL towing a minesweeping sled over the salt water. An MH-53 bro told a while ago that their airframes were aging quickly, and their corrosion control program could not keep up.
Click to expand...
NAVAIR has 2 former MH-53E's from AMARC storage into Erickson Air Crane for conversion and rework to CH-53E standard. That will help.

My original question was whether former USAF MH-53M Pave Lows could be pressed into service with a little rework to fill the gap. The answer seems to be that these airframes, retired in 2010 were pretty worn out as well despite the innovative improvements
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Like when i tried to push my Volvo wagon past 250,000 miles. Despite good external appearance it was always something.
 
Swanee

Swanee

Cereal Killer
pilot
None
Contributor
Pags said:
You're confusing your MH-53s. Chuck was talking about former USAF pave lows.

But the USN 53 fleet isn't healthy either
Click to expand...
ChuckMK23 said:
NAVAIR has 2 former MH-53E's from AMARC storage into Erickson Air Crane for conversion and rework to CH-53E standard. That will help.

My original question was whether former USAF MH-53M Pave Lows could be pressed into service with a little rework to fill the gap. The answer seems to be that these airframes, retired in 2010 were pretty worn out as well despite the innovative improvements
Click to expand...


Ah. I didn't realize that the AF and the Navy had different variants of MH-53s. I mean, I did, but didn't realize the Pave Lows were also MH-53 types.

Those two Navy MH-53s- would they go anywhere but the RAG? How easy would it be to turn a minesweeper into a CH-53E? Is the cockpit any different? The back half has to have some different type of beeps and squeeks type nerdery that the Marine Corps doesn't do.
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
The Navair contract calls for conversion of sponsons and avionics - in the end these two airframes will be deployable Shitters to whatever HMH gets them
 
P

Pags

N/A
pilot
ChuckMK23 said:
NAVAIR has 2 former MH-53E's from AMARC storage into Erickson Air Crane for conversion and rework to CH-53E standard. That will help.

My original question was whether former USAF MH-53M Pave Lows could be pressed into service with a little rework to fill the gap. The answer seems to be that these airframes, retired in 2010 were pretty worn out as well despite the innovative improvements
Click to expand...
Are you sure Ericskson is turning MH-53s into CH-53s? I thought they were restoring MHs to MHs for use by the USN HM community (which is also short of airframe so).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top