Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Sikorsky rolls out CH-53K

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Sikorsky rolls out CH-53K

Old 2nd Feb 2019, 03:14
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
I see more 53's flying with landing gear down...than up....even in formations where some aircraft in the formation have gear up...and others gear down.

Being an Army Chinook Pilot....there is an opening for some good fun about Marines and their figuring out they landed gear up......but I shall not lower myself to that level.

The Army thought ahead on that.....and saw to it we could only accomplish that by tearing the fixed legs off the old girls.
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2019, 05:06
  #82 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,013
ORAC is online now  
Old 11th Feb 2019, 00:49
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HKG
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by Willard Whyte View Post
With 27,000 lbs of kit slung underneath. One would hope the mission radius is a little more when not carrying so much stuff...
That "short" mission radius is while carrying a 27,000-lb LAV. And I believe that this is at ISA+15 or 20C and even delivering to a certain altitude of a few thousand feet at least. The mission radius with 55 pax (assuming 200 lbs/pax) would therefore be about 180 nm. That's what it was designed to do. The normal (VFR) range (roughly 2 x ROA) of the CH-53E was about 450 nm and the MH-53E about 625 nm as I recall.

The Navy could have given it more fuel like the MH-53E (~22,500 lbs if I remember correctly) but its just not needed often. When they need to they can always just call in a KC-130 for AAR refuleling. I do recall someone in my squadron "inadvertently" lifting a 39k lb load once (steel ship cradle I believe) in bay of Siracusa. 53A-D were superb, 53E's performed awesomely but had serious safety and reliability issues...hopefully lessons learned and applied by today's "nextgen" engineers in Stratford have made the K the ultimate PRODUCTION heavy-lift category helicopter in the world...Nothing like the sound and feel of the 53 starting up or flying by !
FlyHiGuy is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2019, 00:56
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HKG
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
From Flightglobal:



What happened to the cruise speed of 170 Knots? For $25 Billion+ the US should be getting something faster that an ASTAR or 407. So the V-22 is twice as fast.

The Sultan
There is a difference between "cruise speed" and "Max cruise speed" (often called "Vh"). The 53E's recommended cruise speed was actually 130-140 max so that's probably what's being referred to in this "141 kt" figure. The Echo flew great straight & level at 170 kts so I'm sure that the K can at least equal that figure since it was already published...there is just no point - harder on the components, fuel burn peaks disproportionately - all to get sailors or marines or cargo to their destination just a little faster (assuming peacetime ops where its not critical). Same thing applies for "your" V-22 I am sure with cruise & max cruise speeds. Same principle applied for the Concorde probably also !
FlyHiGuy is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2019, 01:00
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HKG
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by dagenham View Post
Lets hope they dont try to roll this one ...the last time didn't end well.

Amazing machine the " homer" shame only two built, but when the soviet air force says niet you know you have problems!

Any one know if the eu / uk heavy lift competition still going on, i seem to remember a supersize euro tandem twin design being flashed about..... This and the king would be an interesting sight
Not sure what "last time didn't end well" is based on; Frank Tefft - "THE" legend of 53's did the maneuver and it went just great ! All he had to do is compensate with a little "dishout" as he described it to compensate for the loss of lift while inverted to keep altitude. Bravo - hope he is still enjoying his retirement now in Madison Connecticut I believe !
FlyHiGuy is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2019, 08:51
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,448
Amazing machine the " homer" shame only two built, but when the soviet air force says niet you know you have problems!
I remember seeing that thing at the 1969 Paris Air Show. It lumbered along making a most fearful racket and looked like it was barely controllable....
BEagle is online now  
Old 11th Feb 2019, 11:36
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
ORAC,..... Perhaps it is where and who is doing this Testing that has more to do with the problems than the problems themselves.

I bet had the testing. been done at Sikorsky the progress and resolutions of the issues would be far quicker.

Look into how the Testing process came about and you will understand my comment.

SASless is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2019, 13:49
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 0
"but when the soviet air force says niet you know you have problems"

there's a view that the Russians are willing to send out their crews in any old rubbish - but I seem to remember t an other country who built 3 types of jet bomber with seats for the pilots and a deathtrap door for their crews........
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2019, 16:43
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 564
Public Shaming Of Sikorsky on CH-53K

From Janes:

The US Department of Defense (DoD) is looking to address ongoing problems with the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion's main gearbox (MGB) by sourcing an alternate supplier.

The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) issued a solicitation on 22 April for alternative sources for the MGB to mitigate current production risk and secure volume increases for future production.

The CH-53K is fitted with an advanced drive system incorporating a multiple-path split-torque gearbox with load-sharing capability, which enables the helicopter to use the extra power of the three General Electric T408-GE-400 turboshaft engines.

This gearbox was one of three critical technologies on the helicopter that had not reached the desired levels of maturity by the time system development was launched in late 2005. Problems still had not been fully resolved in 2014 when a redesign of the MGB delayed the aircraft's maiden flight, which was finally achieved in October 2015. The US Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2018 report released earlier this year noted the MGB's low reliability and reduced service-life projections.

According to NAVAIR's request for information (RFI), the alternate supplier would participate in the CH-53K programme as a sub-contractor to Sikorsky, which is "the only contractor with the requisite knowledge, experience, and technical data that can meet the government's requirements on a timely basis".

As outlined in the report, the MGB is one of eight design deficiencies discovered during early testing. The others comprise airspeed indication anomalies, hot gas impingement on aircraft structures, tail boom and tail rotor structural problems, overheating of main rotor dampers, fuel system anomalies, high temperatures in the number two engine bay, and hot gas ingestion by the number two engine, which could reduce available power.
Wow! Does not get more humiliating than to get your own design taken away from you. If as suspected the transmission is an issue on SB-1 (epic loads) this is another nail in its coffin.
The Sultan is online now  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 06:07
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
From Janes:



Wow! Does not get more humiliating than to get your own design taken away from you. If as suspected the transmission is an issue on SB-1 (epic loads) this is another nail in its coffin.
It's not having the design "taken away", but sourcing an additional company to supply certain key components to increase resilience in the production programme. But not great that they need to do this.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 09:16
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 564
The US Department of Defense (DoD) is looking to address ongoing problems with the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion's main gearbox (MGB) by sourcing an alternate supplier.
If it was just a numbers issue they would have used the word additional not alternate. This appears to be more of the Navy has lost confidence in the ability of Sikorsky to fix and produce their own transmission.
The Sultan is online now  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 10:30
  #92 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,013
It’s an alternative supplier rather than additional because the original supplier went bankrupt.

One of the the problems with such long development programmes - even worse in others, such as the F-35, where components such as processors become obsolete and unavailable and the systems need redesigning in the middle if the EOD process.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-a-needed-part
ORAC is online now  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 11:57
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
It’s an alternative supplier rather than additional because the original supplier went bankrupt.

One of the the problems with such long development programmes - even worse in others, such as the F-35, where components such as processors become obsolete and unavailable and the systems need redesigning in the middle if the EOD process.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-a-needed-part
You'd think that if that was the case Sikorsky would mention it in their statement. Indeed, their comment from the Jane's story appears t say that all is well with their supply chain:

"Sikorsky’s existing supply chain can support the currently contracted quantities of aircraft. Due to the complex nature of the gearbox manufacturing, and to strengthen the supply chains for future production quantities and rate, second sources for some key components of the main gearbox are being developed.

Sikorsky has invested in improved tooling, modelling, and manufacturing at several suppliers to ensure the integrity of the programme schedule for currently contracted aircraft.

We are confident we will meet the marine’s goal for operational deployment in 2023–24.”




Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 16:13
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,477
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post


If it was just a numbers issue they would have used the word additional not alternate. This appears to be more of the Navy has lost confidence in the ability of Sikorsky to fix and produce their own transmission.
Sultan, are you still employed by a rival to Sikorsky?
West Coast is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 21:50
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,359
Westy, I think the first five word were enough.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2019, 22:46
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 564
This gearbox was one of three critical technologies on the helicopter that had not reached the desired levels of maturity by the time system development was launched in late 2005. Problems still had not been fully resolved in 2014 when a redesign of the MGB delayed the aircraft's maiden flight, which was finally achieved in October 2015. The US Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2018 report released earlier this year noted the MGB's low reliability and reduced service-life projections.
Low reliability and reduced service life projections are not supply chain issues. The above indicates a problem with the basic design which has not been solved in 14 years.
The Sultan is online now  
Old 25th Apr 2019, 01:17
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
You reckon Sultan can understand the Vibes he is getting due to his Sikorsky bashing?

A bit of analysis might show him a need to make. some modifications and provide a smoother ride for himself here at PPRuNe.
SASless is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2019, 20:55
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 564
Not bashing. To refresh:

The Defense Department laid out a slew of mechanical issues found during initial testing that include: “airspeed indication anomalies, low reliability of main rotor gearbox, hot gas impingement on aircraft structures, tail boom and tail rotor structural problems, overheating of main rotor dampers, fuel system anomalies, high temperatures in the #2 engine bay, and hot gas ingestion by the #2 engine, which could reduce available power.”
Add to this the unit cost is 3x the original and the original 2015 IOC has moved to beyond 2021 you get a picture of a lack of the program/design competence required to meet current commitments and capture future programs.
The Sultan is online now  
Old 26th Apr 2019, 02:55
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,359
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
Add to this the unit cost is 3x the original and the original 2015 IOC has moved to beyond 2021 you get a picture of a lack of the program/design competence required to meet current commitments and capture future programs.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, Sultan, and as much as I love the Osprey, I recall that in the early 00's Bell / Boeing had a less than modest problem with "will it ever IOC" when the Navy had to shut down it's V-22 training pipeline for two+ years because there was No aircraft to feed those new pilots into. How soon YOU forget. Or did that hit too close to home for you, eh?


Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 26th Apr 2019, 07:50
  #100 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,013
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tells-pentagon

Troubled Lockheed Helicopter Needs New Review, Inhofe Tells Pentagon

The Pentagon needs to undertake another review of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s $31 billion CH-53K heavy lift helicopter program amid continuing technical problems and delays, according to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Republican Senator James Inhofe said the importance of the CH-53K King Stallion to the Marine Corps means that a “comprehensive, independent update” on the long-delayed program is overdue. Inhofe’s role leading the committee that authorizes defense spending means his request will almost certainly be heeded.

“We need to get it right, and this report should give us a current assessment and reestablish a baseline for the program to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely,” Inhofe said in a statement to Bloomberg News. The senator cited concern that the chopper “is more than a year behind schedule and has over 100 outstanding deficiencies that still require resolution.”

Inhofe’s request comes as the Navy plans to award a production contract for as many as 14 new King Stallions next month, though so far only two of a planned 200 helicopters are under contract. The Navy program office and Lockheed’s Sikorsky Aircraft unit are still working to address 126 technical deficiencies, according to the Pentagon’s latest report on the system. The Oklahoma senator stopped short of suggesting the contract not be signed...........
ORAC is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.