|
Sikorsky rolls out CH-53K King Stallion
|
Nice piece of hardware. The blades look impressive, stiff with a very wide chord.
|
We large helicopter pilots are familiar with that don't you know?
:E |
Are these all new or airframes from the bone yard?
|
Originally Posted by Boudreaux Bob
(Post 8465437)
We large (helicopter) pilots
|
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?:bored:
|
All are new build.
Major use of composites. |
Not your 'figmentation'..
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. |
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: “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. |
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. :bored: 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. |
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? :confused: 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. |
Originally Posted by Stinger10
(Post 8466245)
By your logic we should still be flying WWII fighters instead of F-18s, F-22s, and F-35s.
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, 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! :ok: |
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 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. |
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 |
Name just one Aircraft Development Contract that ever ran on Schedule and On-Cost that was run by the DOD?
|
The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, allegedly.
I/C |
SAC, problems with a gearbox.......surely not:{
|
Yahoo finance reports first flight:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sikors...164602114.html |
SAC Press Release
The 30-minute flight signals the beginning of a 2,000-hour flight test program using four test aircraft. |
COuldnt upload image as was on train from Kings X and all lights went out so after leaving station :(:E
Here's Sikorsky official photo, cheers http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psozqomfba.jpg |
Impressive machine :D
skadi |
A very impressive aircraft indeed. It would be nice if people would appreciate just how difficult a task it is to design and build such an aircraft.
|
First Flight
Congratulations to the whole team. It is always great to see a new aircraft take to the air for the first time. Since the 53E was such a workhorse, I can't wait to see what this one will do!
|
From Flightglobal:
US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) reported on 24 March that the King Stallion recently demonstrated its advertised speed of 140kts with 15° angle-of-bank turns. The one thing not impressive about the 53K is its apparent pathetic performance. Is Sikosrky sandbagging this thing to 140 kts so the S-97 looks impressive at speeds well short of the V-22? The Sultan |
Far more interesting to me was:
The cost of developing the aircraft has grown by 44% from $4.7 billion to $6.8 billion since 2005 and the procurement estimate for 200 aircraft stands at $19 billion. |
Sans
After the Canadian 92, this is not surprising. Probably just the start. The Sultan |
The Sultan might probably be only too familiar with all this, with his experience with the failed ARH programme cancellation?
|
Rotor
You are confused Sikosky did the multi-billion fiasco called the LHX as competently as they did the Can 92. The flaw with ARH was it was managed by the govt's LHX program who grew requirements until, to save themselves, they cancelled the mission. So now we have 64's doing scouting missions poorly. One thing to note the 407 has better speed than the 53K. The Sultan |
I am not in the least bit confused, and my comment is specific to the Bell ARH program. You appear to be doing a bit of revisionist history here, as the blame for the failure of this project lies firmly in the hands of Bell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_ARH-70_Arapaho Oh, and the 53K has better payload than the 407. |
Originally Posted by The Sultan
(Post 9334336)
So now we have 64's doing scouting missions poorly.
Please don't ignore how much the UAV/RPV family of unmanned aircraft, of sizes down to hand launched, have intruded on the manned recon mission's rice bowl. I got a good look at that in OIF about ten years ago, and the UAV's role has grown since. FWIW, I suspect that ARH was a victim of bad timing ... +/- two years on that acquisition time line and I suspect it would not have been cnx'd. |
Oh, and the 53K has better payload than the 407. |
CH-53K arrived in Europe
It has arrived today, in Germany ahead of next month's ILA,
cheers https://farm1.staticflickr.com/800/4...c5c76c9e_b.jpg |
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
(Post 9335687)
Thus far, I think 53K has demonstrated a max payload of...2 crew? :}
http://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-...295_128428-117 36k lb external load :D |
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
(Post 9333482)
Far more interesting to me was:
44% is danger-close to Nunn–McCurdy That is no problem....I donated to the Kitty today so the USMC should be good to go for a while! |
Originally Posted by Droop Snoot
The impressive performance will be when the CH-53K demonstrates its ability to lift heavy payloads over long distances at high/hot conditions. I/C |
The impressive performance will be when the CH-53K demonstrates its ability to lift heavy payloads over long distances at high/hot conditions. Hot/High, Long Distance, heavy payloads....so what is the competition in that contest? The 101, NH-90, Belvedere or the venerable Chinook? |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10100895)
Hot/High, Long Distance, heavy payloads....so what is the competition in that contest?
The 101, NH-90, Belvedere or the venerable Chinook? |
Originally Posted by SASless
Hot/High, Long Distance, heavy payloads....so what is the competition in that contest?
The 101, NH-90, Belvedere or the venerable Chinook? The current CH-47F can carry 16k lb @ 4K/95F, while the CH-53K's baseline requirement is 27k lb @ 3K/95F (with an objective requirement of 30k lb @ 3K/95F). The Block II CH-47F will close the gap slightly, but the CH-53K will remain king of the hill, thanks in no small part to its 22,500 shp of installed power. (Let's see what happens when Boeing sticks a couple of T408s in the CH-47. :E) I/C |
The RAF is said to be called by Boeing to send one of their Odiham Chinooks to ILA as well.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.