Ken V,
Indeed - The gearbox/head of the -53K weighs the same as a UH60. That's what power folding complexity costs you. The K is designed to float about in a maritime environment. The RAF has successfully operated the -47 off carriers for years. Yes there is a maintenance penalty - but it's a small price to pay. The Chinook is only "unwieldy" in terms of storage. The power and tandem rotor layout make ship ops very straightforward (I've landed one downwind with the boat doing 25+kts with no issue whatsoever - aside from landing in my own spray...) and in spread deck space terms, the -53K is actually bigger than a Chinook! The -47 has a 60ft disk, the -53 79ft (!), whereas, give an inch or two, their both the small over-all length (about 100ft). Germany says that both aircraft meet the Threshold Spec, indicating that a massive outsize single point load is not a key discriminator, nor is prolonged maritime operations. In which case, why on earth would they pick the high risk option (-53K) which, at best guess, will be 2.5 times the unit cost of a -47F and substantially more expensive to run? Will have to be a hell of a discount/offset.....