Sikorsky rolls out CH-53K King Stallion
Thread Starter
Sikorsky rolls out CH-53K King Stallion
Chief Bottle Washer
Could be looking through the bottom of my second glass of red after the second beer, but that tail rotor appears to be pointed a bit backwards - is that a new design to get some thrust from it, or an imagment of my figmentation?
Not your 'figmentation'..
From the Mil forum
pprune.org/mil
airvectors.net
P1
From the Mil forum
pprune.org/mil
airvectors.net
The first prototype was wrecked in a ground accident. Although the prototypes were built with a wide-span, low-mounted symmetrical tailfin, flight control problems led to refitting the second machine with of a distinctive new tail assembly, with the tailfin canted to the left by 20 degrees and an inverted-gull asymmetric tailplane mounted on the right. This change was used in production S-80s.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an impressive upgrade to the H-53E which I flew for 4 years, and will serve the USMC well.
However, I have observation to the quote from the PM where he called it a "clean sheet" design when it was supposed to be an ECP upgrade to avoid a formal acquisition:
So when was the last time the Navy (including USMC) actually competed a helicopter program?
H-60R (No)
H-60S (No)
CH-53K (No)
MV-22 (No)
AH-1Z (No)
UH-1Y (No)
VXX v.2 (No)
All these aircraft, with the exception of the H-60R/S, are NEW aircraft and the Navy didn't get any competitive benefit from any of the programs either in cost or capability. It highlights a pattern of behavior from the Navy, where its easier an more efficient to go around the acquisition process, work with the current supplier, and call it an "ECP" when it is actually a NEW aircraft.
However, I have observation to the quote from the PM where he called it a "clean sheet" design when it was supposed to be an ECP upgrade to avoid a formal acquisition:
“This is a new aircraft,” proclaimed Col. Robert Pridgen, the Marines’ heavy-lift helicopter program manager. “We started with a clean sheet.”
H-60R (No)
H-60S (No)
CH-53K (No)
MV-22 (No)
AH-1Z (No)
UH-1Y (No)
VXX v.2 (No)
All these aircraft, with the exception of the H-60R/S, are NEW aircraft and the Navy didn't get any competitive benefit from any of the programs either in cost or capability. It highlights a pattern of behavior from the Navy, where its easier an more efficient to go around the acquisition process, work with the current supplier, and call it an "ECP" when it is actually a NEW aircraft.
Last edited by Stinger10; 6th May 2014 at 14:35.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but that tail rotor appears to be pointed a bit backwards - is that a new design to get some thrust from it, or an imagment of my figmentation?
The first prototype was wrecked in a ground accident. Although the prototypes were built with a wide-span, low-mounted symmetrical tailfin, flight control problems led to refitting the second machine with of a distinctive new tail assembly, with the tailfin canted to the left by 20 degrees and an inverted-gull asymmetric tailplane mounted on the right. This change was used in production S-80s.
AC seems to be talking about rotating the plane of the tail rotor about the vertical axis (looks like that to me as well, but I suspect it may be barrel distortion from a very wide-angle lens, especially since the tail rotor is a tractor), while pohm1 seems to be talking about rotating the plane of the tail rotor about the longitudinal axis (which has been done in a number of helicopters since the S-80 / CH-53E).
Most of the large pilots of helicopters with whom I am acquainted tend to complain they are unable to visually observe their chord width or stiffness without a mirror.
Stinger:
SH-60R and CH-60S, later renamed MH-60R and MH-60S, were two different ideas. I won't talk to UH-1Y and Z, but I seem to recall that they were initially envisioned in a similar fashion, as a rework/upgrade versus new product. Why was this? MONEY! (And, being Naval Aviation's second class citizens, aka helicopter sorts).
a. CH-60S was part of the Helo Master Plan of the early 1990's, which replaced (after much gnashing of teeth) CH-46 Vertrep capability with a Black Hawk variant. Why the Black Hawk variant? Because using a Sea Hawk variant (and the issues with forward tail wheel and cargo requirements) would run about a million dollars more expensive each, and this crap went on during the Clinton Administration when there was no forking money unless you were Super Hornet or E-2 ... OK, I am not bitter, I really am over it.
b. SH-60 B/F to R was originally envisioned as an overhaul/depot level remanufacture program because ... wait for it ... there was no forking APN1 money, but there was repair money, during the Clinton Administration. As it turns out, a few old hands at the OEM suggested that a new buy would be cheaper and better use of scarce dollars. In the long run that turned out to be true, and became the ugly truth when the first few went to Troy and the Lot 13 drawings/baseline had some serious trouble being applied to bent old Lot 0 - 5 airframes initially in line for the remanufacture process. (Short answer: a lot of the holes didn't line up in major stuctural areas).
c. In due course, a deputy sec nav for acquisition reviewed the program and rightly decided to put it back into R & D. (A half a billion dollars or so after the R conception back in the 80's ... ) As had been previously suggested, the upgrade (without the wide chord blade, for various reasons) came out as new birds in the form you see it today. (Thank goodness!) More or less, a few details may be slightly off there.
Make the best of such money as is available. That's acq programs for real, versus theoretical / best case.
I ask you: consider how long the C-130 has been around, and the Huey.
Is there some pressing need to have a "new" helicopter?
I'll suggest to you that the industry, and the limits that physics / aerodynamics impose on helicopter performance have been reached, and any improvements are developed in marginal expansion of capability at significant cost differential.
SH-60R and CH-60S, later renamed MH-60R and MH-60S, were two different ideas. I won't talk to UH-1Y and Z, but I seem to recall that they were initially envisioned in a similar fashion, as a rework/upgrade versus new product. Why was this? MONEY! (And, being Naval Aviation's second class citizens, aka helicopter sorts).
a. CH-60S was part of the Helo Master Plan of the early 1990's, which replaced (after much gnashing of teeth) CH-46 Vertrep capability with a Black Hawk variant. Why the Black Hawk variant? Because using a Sea Hawk variant (and the issues with forward tail wheel and cargo requirements) would run about a million dollars more expensive each, and this crap went on during the Clinton Administration when there was no forking money unless you were Super Hornet or E-2 ... OK, I am not bitter, I really am over it.
b. SH-60 B/F to R was originally envisioned as an overhaul/depot level remanufacture program because ... wait for it ... there was no forking APN1 money, but there was repair money, during the Clinton Administration. As it turns out, a few old hands at the OEM suggested that a new buy would be cheaper and better use of scarce dollars. In the long run that turned out to be true, and became the ugly truth when the first few went to Troy and the Lot 13 drawings/baseline had some serious trouble being applied to bent old Lot 0 - 5 airframes initially in line for the remanufacture process. (Short answer: a lot of the holes didn't line up in major stuctural areas).
c. In due course, a deputy sec nav for acquisition reviewed the program and rightly decided to put it back into R & D. (A half a billion dollars or so after the R conception back in the 80's ... ) As had been previously suggested, the upgrade (without the wide chord blade, for various reasons) came out as new birds in the form you see it today. (Thank goodness!) More or less, a few details may be slightly off there.
Make the best of such money as is available. That's acq programs for real, versus theoretical / best case.
I ask you: consider how long the C-130 has been around, and the Huey.
Is there some pressing need to have a "new" helicopter?
I'll suggest to you that the industry, and the limits that physics / aerodynamics impose on helicopter performance have been reached, and any improvements are developed in marginal expansion of capability at significant cost differential.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L/W 50
best of luck to the future King Stallion drivers out there. The Big Iron is a very good helicopter and hopefully the BIGGEST Iron will be even better.....time will tell.
OFF TOPIC-
Thanks for the R/W Navy Acq history review. I was there for most of it as well...
A couple of comments.
I didn't see any mention of the word "competition" in your post, so....
REPEAT - When was the last time the Navy actually competed a helicopter program?
Rant / ON
All I am looking for is that DoD get the same competitive benefit as you and I get when we buy something. Competition is the single driving force for growth in any free market economy, and DoD is ignoring that benefit. It actually has to occur however to get the benefit and not in name only.
Its something every taxpayer should demand. When competition exists its the only way the purchaser can be assured of getting the best product at the best price, and the economy grows........ Econ 101 right.
Rant / OFF
Near as I can tell the helicopter industry is thriving and growing rapidly due to the commercial sector, and I contend it will not take 30yrs to develop a next gen. technology (aka: V-22). Check out the next HeliExpo and you can see where commercial helicopter development has actually surpassed military, technology-wise. If there was true competition in DoD you'd likely see significant and timely development in "vertical aviation" rather than the "marginal expansion of capability" that you observe. Competition would also push Industry to spend their OWN R&D instead of waiting for a DoD program to sponsor them like FVL/JMR. S-97 is being pushed without a gov't sponsor right now, but will never be fully developed unless it has the chance to compete for a program.
Other than this is a forum that supports R/W aviation, so we kind of view helicopters as a useful tool across a much wider variety of missions than traditional F/W aircraft. For example; I don't hear survivors calling for assistance from a bunch of strike fighters following a disaster. I'd suggest we'll never know if we keep recycling the same helicopters and not allowing industry to demonstrate what they have developed. By your logic we should still be flying WWII fighters instead of F-18s, F-22s, and F-35s.....
Lastly, we need to quit making excuses for a broken, lazy system and fix it. Acquisition exists for the warfighter and the taxpayer, not the other way around, and if "acq programs for real...." means they cannot manage a competitive environment and acquire the best product AT the best price, then we have our answer, don't we?
OFF TOPIC-
Thanks for the R/W Navy Acq history review. I was there for most of it as well...
A couple of comments.
I didn't see any mention of the word "competition" in your post, so....
REPEAT - When was the last time the Navy actually competed a helicopter program?
Rant / ON
All I am looking for is that DoD get the same competitive benefit as you and I get when we buy something. Competition is the single driving force for growth in any free market economy, and DoD is ignoring that benefit. It actually has to occur however to get the benefit and not in name only.
Its something every taxpayer should demand. When competition exists its the only way the purchaser can be assured of getting the best product at the best price, and the economy grows........ Econ 101 right.
Rant / OFF
I'll suggest to you that the industry, and the limits that physics / aerodynamics impose on helicopter performance have been reached, and any improvements are developed in marginal expansion of capability at significant cost differential.
Is there some pressing need to have a "new" helicopter?
That's acq programs for real, versus theoretical / best case.
Point to consider: when you develop a rotor craft versus a fixed wing aircraft, per pound the cost is about 10X more for the rotorcraft. Maintenance and operations costs likewise much higher. I am not convinced we've seen the last move forward in using composites to resolve the weight issue that arise in each new model's development cycle. (Recent post about that neat little bird in New Zealand is intriguing and exciting.)
Lastly, we need to quit making excuses for a broken, lazy system and fix it.
Old teaching point when I was a flight instructor.
IP: What makes an airplane fly?
Student: Lift, thrust, ...
IP: (Takes a dollar bill out of pocket and waves it): Money.
Please write your Congressman and complain about the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Let us know how you do.
Acquisition exists for the warfighter and the taxpayer, not the other way around,
I will suggest to you that any number of our Congress-critters do not agree with your view, and see those programs as they regards jobs in their districts. As interesting as S-97 is, it is worth recalling a technological leap forward, Comanche, died a horrible death in part due to being very expensive for the perceived value. S-97 may run into a similar wall ... but I join you in applauding Sikorsky in taking that move forward without training wheels.
As to the future, I am intrigued by V-280 Valor's potential as a variation on the tilt rotor theme. We'll see if they can take the concept and make it work.
Back to the King Stallion: still feelin' the love!
Is anyone surprised?
Sikorsky CH-53K first flight pushed at earliest to March - 12/3/2014 - Flight Global
Sikorsky CH-53K first flight pushed at earliest to March - 12/3/2014 - Flight Global
Sikorsky CH-53K first flight pushed at earliest to March
By: DAN PARSONSWASHINGTON DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
The US Marine Corps will have to wait until at least March for its new heavy lift helicopter, the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion, to make its maiden flight.
Originally planned for summer 2014, the King Stallion’s first flight was pushed to the end of the year when a crack was found in one of the four gear boxes of a ground test article. US Naval Air Systems Command now says the aircraft will enter flight testing “sometime between March and May next year.”
“First flight is driven by the current ground test vehicle (GTV) test events,” says Kelly Burdick, a spokesman for the navy’s programme executive office for aviation. “The GTV is currently undergoing powered ground tests to measure and verify the ability of the drive system, transmissions and engines and flight control system to safely fly the CH-53K helicopter across multiple flight scenarios.”
Engineers at NAVAIR and Sikorsky have made adjustments to the CH-53K’s main rotor gearbox to improve load distribution and have been retesting the fix “to ensure optimal performance prior to the flight test phase”, Burdick says.
“All issues discovered to this point have a technical solution and are typical of developmental programs - this is why we do this testing,” she says. “These tests, their data, and their schedule all drive the timeframe for first flight and discoveries are typical during this phase of testing.”
A Sikorsky spokesman says the static ground test article has undergone nearly 200h of testing, including subjecting the airframe to 115% of its maximum load. Sikorsky also has completed vibration and ultimate load testing on two conditions, in which the main rotors are overloaded by 150% compared to design loads.
The USMC has plans to buy 200 King Stallions to replace its entire fleet of smaller CH-53E Super Stallions. The CH-53K’s structural integrity was officially cleared for flight in April, then rolled out during a 5 May ceremony at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Florida, manufacturing facility.
The King Stallion shares its designation and much of its exterior design with the Super Stallion, but is in reality a clean-sheet aircraft with new rotor, engines, transmission, cockpit, cabin and tail rotor. With a maximum takeoff weight of 39,900kg (88,000lb), the CH-53K will be the US military’s largest helicopter when it enters service. It will be capable of ferrying two Humvees at once compared to the CH-53E’s one, as well as make multiple combat drops on a single flight.
The USMC originally had plans for the King Stallion to enter service in 2015, but developmental delays have caused initial operational capability to slide at least until 2018.
By: DAN PARSONSWASHINGTON DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
The US Marine Corps will have to wait until at least March for its new heavy lift helicopter, the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion, to make its maiden flight.
Originally planned for summer 2014, the King Stallion’s first flight was pushed to the end of the year when a crack was found in one of the four gear boxes of a ground test article. US Naval Air Systems Command now says the aircraft will enter flight testing “sometime between March and May next year.”
“First flight is driven by the current ground test vehicle (GTV) test events,” says Kelly Burdick, a spokesman for the navy’s programme executive office for aviation. “The GTV is currently undergoing powered ground tests to measure and verify the ability of the drive system, transmissions and engines and flight control system to safely fly the CH-53K helicopter across multiple flight scenarios.”
Engineers at NAVAIR and Sikorsky have made adjustments to the CH-53K’s main rotor gearbox to improve load distribution and have been retesting the fix “to ensure optimal performance prior to the flight test phase”, Burdick says.
“All issues discovered to this point have a technical solution and are typical of developmental programs - this is why we do this testing,” she says. “These tests, their data, and their schedule all drive the timeframe for first flight and discoveries are typical during this phase of testing.”
A Sikorsky spokesman says the static ground test article has undergone nearly 200h of testing, including subjecting the airframe to 115% of its maximum load. Sikorsky also has completed vibration and ultimate load testing on two conditions, in which the main rotors are overloaded by 150% compared to design loads.
The USMC has plans to buy 200 King Stallions to replace its entire fleet of smaller CH-53E Super Stallions. The CH-53K’s structural integrity was officially cleared for flight in April, then rolled out during a 5 May ceremony at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Florida, manufacturing facility.
The King Stallion shares its designation and much of its exterior design with the Super Stallion, but is in reality a clean-sheet aircraft with new rotor, engines, transmission, cockpit, cabin and tail rotor. With a maximum takeoff weight of 39,900kg (88,000lb), the CH-53K will be the US military’s largest helicopter when it enters service. It will be capable of ferrying two Humvees at once compared to the CH-53E’s one, as well as make multiple combat drops on a single flight.
The USMC originally had plans for the King Stallion to enter service in 2015, but developmental delays have caused initial operational capability to slide at least until 2018.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sans,
No. As Stinger has already pointed out, the Kilo is now - designation aside - a completely new aircraft (with full FBW), and when the program's R&D costs were quietly escalated by $1.8 Bn (39%) in 2011, it was clear the challenge of developing the West's biggest lifter had been underestimated.
I/C
No. As Stinger has already pointed out, the Kilo is now - designation aside - a completely new aircraft (with full FBW), and when the program's R&D costs were quietly escalated by $1.8 Bn (39%) in 2011, it was clear the challenge of developing the West's biggest lifter had been underestimated.
I/C
SAC, problems with a gearbox.......surely not
Yahoo finance reports first flight:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sikors...164602114.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sikors...164602114.html
Last edited by IFMU; 27th Oct 2015 at 17:44. Reason: make the link a hyperlink
SAC Press Release
The 30-minute flight signals the beginning of a 2,000-hour flight test program using four test aircraft.