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

Will the US Army lose the next War because of this?

Wikiposts
Search
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.

Will the US Army lose the next War because of this?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 21st May 2019, 15:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,291
Received 518 Likes on 216 Posts
Will the US Army lose the next War because of this?

Being an old Chinook Pilot...literally.....this topic is of interest to me for many reasons.

The Army's decision re up-grading the Chinook fleet is becoming very controversial.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...Szha5T0P4Rj_0Q


https://www.rotorandwing.com/2018/10...grade-budgets/
SASless is online now  
Old 21st May 2019, 18:15
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,042
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
There is already talk of a backlash from The Hill. Questions being asked about a stopgap -47 order to buy-out the immediate issues with the -53K and give Sikorsky time to get it right. There’s also talk of funding Boeing to examine fitting the T408 engine from the -53K to the Chinook (a subtle 2000+ hp increase per side.....) to see if, perhaps, it’s better to go straight to Block III. The other impact of stopping Block II is increased unit costs for export customers and when the US decides to reopen the line. Lots to play for.....
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 21st May 2019, 21:03
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,078
Received 188 Likes on 72 Posts
SASless,

Availability of CH47 was a major pinchpoint during the early part of the UK's Afghanistan operations circa 2006-2007; it wasn't the operator making the noise, it was the Battlegroup Commanders and Senior Planners. If you are planning air manoeuvre warfare, you better have sufficient CH47.......
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 13:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,236
Received 421 Likes on 263 Posts
SASless, to say that the change of course in the progress of the Chinook program is a mistake is to say that fish swim in water. Yeah, someone
Originally Posted by Evalu8er
Questions being asked about a stopgap -47 order to buy-out the immediate issues with the -53K and give Sikorsky time to get it right.
Just gonna say that you seem to have gotten your armed services mixed up. The 53's meet a USMC requirement. The Chinooks meet an Army requirement.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 14:37
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 1,077
Received 18 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
SASless,

Availability of CH47 was a major pinchpoint during the early part of the UK's Afghanistan operations circa 2006-2007; it wasn't the operator making the noise, it was the Battlegroup Commanders and Senior Planners. If you are planning air manoeuvre warfare, you better have sufficient CH47.......
...with plenty of EAPS available for desert/dust conditions. And make sure the loggies provides lots of FARPS so you don't run dry between FOBs!
Good to see the new HC4+ have moving maps and glass cockpit. In my day it was a clunky GPS/INS/Doppler CINS panel.
Training Risky is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 19:12
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,291
Received 518 Likes on 216 Posts
Lone,

I believe what E8 was saying is the Chinook can pick up some of the operational demands until the kinks are worked out on the 53-K model as Army Chinooks have supported USMC units in the sandbox before due to the Phrog's being unable to cope with the high DA's.

Swapping Hooks for 53's can work for many of the land based evolutions if the Marines will just ask for the support.

SASless is online now  
Old 22nd May 2019, 20:28
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,042
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
Lonewolf - nope. The USMC have reportedly been directed by lawmakers to receive a briefing on CH-47F as a possible mitigation against continued -53K problems.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ne-helicopters
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 22nd May 2019, 20:39
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,291
Received 518 Likes on 216 Posts
Having flown the earliest "A" models...along with the B, C-, and C model Chinook....the thought of 7500 shp engines under the hood gives me the shivers....that would make the old girl a real horse to ride!


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...p-engi-458380/
SASless 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



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.