# 30 MUSD for a new CHINOOK CH-47F



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2005)

In light of Gen. Hilliers stated need for Heavy Helos


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34



> Army to Purchase New Chinooks, Upgrade Fleet
> 
> 
> (Source: US Army; issued Jan. 19, 2005)
> ...





And on the need for special sea-going conversions....


http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sabr.htm



> For SABR heavy the de facto solution appears to be the Boeing Chinook CH-47.  It had been expected that any Chinook's purchased for SABR would be "marinised" with features such as a folding rotor system, however this may be dropped on cost grounds, the argument being that the Royal Navy has managed for over ten years to operate non-marinised Chinook at sea, so the need is clearly not that essential.  An outside alternative to the Chinook is the CH-53 (probably in X variant, co-operating with the USMC a la JSF) which is being proposed by Sikorsky.  Adopting the CH-53 would require modifications to the lifts of the Invincible Class carriers (and perhaps HMS Ocean), but this might be cheaper than introducing bespoke folding in to the airframe in order to meet RN lift size restrictions.  SABR-heavy has been increasingly likely to form the largest portion of a total SABR buy of up to 80 aircraft (later reduced to 70, but may increase to 100+ if combined with BLUH/SCMR).


----------



## thomastmcc (16 Feb 2005)

Hi I think the CH-53 is too big for the lifts on the invincible carriers and HMS ocean .


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2005)

If someone were considering a capability based on 47's, they could look at an initial acquisition of a few of the remanufactured D-models to get a capability within 12-18 months, get themselves on the waiting list for say, 12-16 CH47F's, when our turn in line for the F's came up bring them on strength then trade in the re-man'd D's for the final batch of F's.   Based on some of the tasks that the beasts may be expected to do (expeditionary forces, etc...) I would even suggest that the last 47's to come on strength be G-models to support Cdn troops in an expeditionary venue (in-flight refeulling, terrain radar, etc...)   The nice thing about the Chinook's avionics is not only the "glass cockpit" but the seamless integration (L-16, SINCGARS, BFID, JTRS) into the digitized battlespace...part of the US Army's Force 21 framework.

Say we pay $35M US per (to include industrial regional benefits/offsets,etc...), that's about   C$45M, multiply by...say 16 a/c for argument's sake, and you have C$ 720M, multiplied by the classis DSP estimate of x3 for complete life-cycle costs (don't ask why, it just seems to work out historically, ask guys in DLR/DAR) and you have C$2,160M which amortized over a 20-year ELE (estimated life-expectancy) is C$108M/yr all-up.   Guys at work with access to the CAS's and DGAEPM's L1 indicative funding levels will see that this is a pretty good deal compared to money being spent annually on "other aerospace weapon systems" (no names, no pack drill...  )   I know the troops on the ground in Kabul and Khandahar and CMTC and the brigades and CTC and...well, you get the idea, would sure appreciate the kick-arse mobility and sustainment capability the 47 would bring to operations.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2005)

Many, many thanks Duey.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2005)

De nada, Kirkhill!  I figure it's best to be straight up with the numbers, as much as we know them, so that no one accuses us of trying to hide anything or understate the actual cost of such a 'weapon system'.  Yup...I and many other 147-qual'd guys, as well as the younger kids wanting to get in and support boots on the ground in operations, would all kill...well at least give a nut of our own choice, L or R, to fly the hook (again, for some of us that old)...  If ever there were a big bang for the buck in today's contemporary operating environment, the 'Hook would be it.  Luckil both Hillier and Leslie are big supporters of the 'Hook.  If only some AF generals had the same level of excitement in the machine... *sigh* :

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (16 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Many, many thanks Duey.



Kirkhill, I think you found a subject near and dear to Duey's heart.

Good info Duey, I'm hooked on MH though so count me out of the waiting list for nut donors, I mean drivers.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

Fantastic - put that "HIGH" on the to do list, General Hillier and Mr Graham.

Thanks for the good stuff, Duey....


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

Duey:


A question for you.  Life-cycle costing.

Is that just a planning tool or is our government signing 20 year life-cycle support contracts?

One makes good business sense.  The other would seem to me to be silly.

20 years out the military's needs will have changed, technology will have changed and most of the parts suppliers will have stopped production, changed hands or gone out of business.  This would mean that any contracting entity would be stuck with a very onerous task and would likely go out of business themselves or have to be bailed out by government in any case.  Thereby making a mockery of a long term contract.

I keep thinking back to the UK civil servant in the Ministry of Defence that a couple of years back got a phone call from Sweden wanting to know if they were ready to take delivery of the masts that they had ordered for the Royal Navy.  The trees were mature and ready for cutting.  The order had been placed in Nelson's day.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill, personally I believe it should be the former (a planning tool) vice the latter (hard figure).  

Some folks seem to feel a business case for military capital acquisition must be tied to solid things...20 years for example...to have credence with gov't.  I don't think that's the case but there are some pretty big paradigms that still need to be broken.  I also don't think that things like this can be made on too short a business case, either...shades of ASD replacing military PY's/capabilities, and then the price gets jacked for the next contract because the smart civvies know the military blew up the capabillity and must either continue down the ASD road or re-start/rebuild a missing mil capability.

Another factor is that a lot can change in 20 years.  We should not necessarily set ourselves up for a, "gosh darn it, we planned this ten years ago, and we still have 10 years left...we can't change now."  I think that there have been enought changes since 89 until now that there may not be as much change in the next 15 years.  However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared to "adjust fire" as the contemporary operating environment continues to evolve.

How we work this out into something that seems a reasonable response to a Governemnt's desire to be seen by the electorate as providing a good balance amongst all its programmes is an interesting challenge.  Prob ably a bit above my pay grade, but I'd like to contribute to the process when and where I can.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## silentbutdeadly (18 Feb 2005)

this would totally help out us ground pounders ! but wouldn't we have had that type of lift if we stayed with the EH 101 project or should i say proimse?


----------



## Inch (18 Feb 2005)

silentbutdeadly said:
			
		

> this would totally help out us ground pounders ! but wouldn't we have had that type of lift if we stayed with the EH 101 project or should i say proimse?



No, the EH101's were going to replace the Labs in SAR roles and the Sea Kings in MH roles, there wasn't going to be enough of them to use for Tac Aviation as well. Not to mention that having a pilot that's qualified for two roles would be a nightmare to try and maintain any currency let alone proficiency. When was the last time you saw a Cormorant or for that matter, a Sea King? If you've never seen one of them, you wouldn't have seen an EH101 and you'll probably never see the Cyclones either, unless that troop carrier on the wish list goes through.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2005)

True enough Inch, 

But using the "one size fits all" logic of the Griffon (won't debate the validity of that logic for the moment) then the original plan to roll the SAR and MSH programmes into one and do both jobs with the one airframe could "logically" have led to the purchase of the Troop Carrier version of the Merlin - basically the Cormorant without the winch from where I sit.

After all the Sea King is used by the RN and RAF for SAR, ASW, Troop Lift, Vertrep, and AEW.  The Merlin could have done all those.

On the other hand, now that time has passed and that we already have two aircraft in the stable (Cyclone and Cormorant) why not get a third (Chinook)?

If we had a single platform then there would be strength in the argument that we should by army kit to fit those platforms (they only lift 5-7 tons instead of the 10 tons of the Chinook IIRC).   But now that we have multiple platforms again, why not by the platform to fit the job?

On that basis buy the Chinook rather than the Merlin.   Besides the Liberals can blame the Conservatives for ditching the Chinooks - kind of even things up for having Conservatives blame the Liberals for ditching the Merlins> ;D


----------



## Inch (18 Feb 2005)

I agree completely, you know me, I've long championed on this forum for the right kit for the job, not a jack-of-all-trades solution. I think you took my post the wrong way, I'm not saying they can't do the job.  I was pointing out that the EH101 contract was made to replace SAR and MH helos, not fulfill the vacated medium-heavy lift role for the army.

The H92 cargo hook is rated to 10,000 lbs.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2005)

I think SAR and MH being different aircraft (for good or for bad) and the differences in weapon system maintenance (civs for SAR, AF for MH) will make the 'hook an easier deal to accept for government.  It's not a stretch to consider that the Griffon have inadvertantly made the point against "one kit for all jobs".  I'm with Inch...better to have the right number of right machines to do the jobs properly than to half-a$$ how you do it.

p.s.  Current ratings for the 'hook puts 12 tons on the center hook and can carry 14 tons between the fore/aft hooks.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Sam69 (18 Feb 2005)

Notwithstanding all the cheerleading for the Sh*thook (sorry Duey), I'm still waiting for a clear articulation of the requirement. We know that the Army needs medium/heavy lift helos for both green and black ops. But what are the actual requirements? Range? Speed? Endurance? Load capacity? 

I just had an engaging discussion with a JTF door kicker who has flown in both Chinooks (US Army) and EH-101s (RAF) on operations and he was unequivocal in his sentiment that the EH-101 was much better suited to their green ops requirement. While he had nothing specifically against the Chinook, he said it paled in comparison to the EH-101.

Sam


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Feb 2005)

Sam, Sean Friday and crew in DAR will be taking the AVN CDR and the AMR work and boiling it into SOR-like material.  The Army's statement is stated WRT a BG-sized TF and some minimum load quantas (MSVS PLS pallet 7t min) and formation sizes, operational factors in sp of the TF, time on station, etc...  From that, it's up to the folks in DG Air FD (DAR and D Air SP) to boil that information down to numbers in an SOR.  The Army statement was purposefully not airframe specific.  If it takes twice as many S-92's to lift what Chinooks could do, and the S-92's are only $17.5M US a piece...hey, that's just as effective in my books.  

Sam, do you figure that DND would look at a fleet of more EH101's instead of S-92's or NH-90's if the 47 wasn't determined to be feasible?  I'm not so sure that an aircraft currently serviced by civilians would be procured...that would put civy maintenance of the CH149 at risk...not sure folks want to go there...that's directly at odds with DND being used as an arm's-length pork barrel by the politicians...   ;D

Cheers,
Duey

p.s. Ironically, and not to question DHTC door kicker's opinions, but the SAS is not at all fond of the EH101.  That's why they put pressure on Whitehall to finally accept the 8 HC.2b/3 (MH-47G's) being fought over for the last few months in the UK.  JA on the Lounge can give more info on the moderate displeasure of RAF and their customers with the 101.


----------



## Sam69 (19 Feb 2005)

Don't get me wrong buddy, I have nothing specifically against the Hook (other than it is unnatural to fly inter-meshing rotors and that you will go to h*ll for it), I am just worried that we are setting ourselves up for disappointment if we set our sights too high without a solid operational requirement behind it. Remember: we have an appalling record when it comes to buying helicopters for some reason.

I also think that the analysis will need to look at airframe numbers and the offsets in the Griffy fleet. This is bound to be a contentious discussion overall and will, no doubt, attract the attention of lobbyists from industry who will be keen to ensure that their aircraft is not excluded from the competition. Having lived through SKR NSA MHP, it's a struggle that I do not look forward to. And, of course, the contractual issues are ones that we have little control over.

On the EH-101/Cormorant front, while the addition of green Cormorants might be seen as a threat to blue-suit maintenance, I think it portends (more significantly) better access to parts. This seems to be the Achilles heel of our current ISS with the Cormorant. Plus, added to the soon to be delivered VH-101s, would mean that we are approaching critical mass for airframes on this continent. It will be quite interesting to see who wins the USAF CSAR contract.

Lastly, I don't know the specifics of why this particular door kicker preferred the 101 to the Hook, but I know that he would counter the SAS's argument by saying that they are involved in a different mission focus than JTF 2 at the moment. I can't go into details for obvious reasons and because I simply do not know enough about either the SAS's or JTF2's tactics, employment, or needs to make any kind of cogent assessment of his comments. I just found his to be an interesting opinion that's all.

Sam


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Feb 2005)

Ack, Senor Sam!  Heck, either/any chopper would beat the pants of your and my BD-4D's.... ;D

p.s.  Apparently some guys in the Air Staff have a plan...as with all fleets, the Griffon's current numbers aren't necessarily sacrosanct.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Feb 2005)

The might griffons rocK !!!


(Just kidding)


----------



## Sam69 (19 Feb 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> Ack, Senor Sam!  Heck, either/any chopper would beat the pants of your and my BD-4D's.... ;D



Right about now I'd say a Cessna 150 with a chipped windscreen would beat the pants of our BD-4Ds!  :dontpanic:

Sigh... how did we get here?

Sam


----------



## Slim (19 Feb 2005)

Is there anything wrong with the Blackhawk/Seahawk/Nighthawk aircraft...I know its a bit small for major trooplift...


----------



## Freddy Chef (19 Feb 2005)

I've seen pic's of Chinooks with telescoping, mid-air refueling probes (MH-47?).

How effective has mid-air refueling with helicopters been, so far?


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Feb 2005)

Slim, the Blackhawk could only lift a section of troops.  A concurrent company lift (the Army's current formation lift requirement) would take 14-18 'Hawks.  The beasties can lift a fair bit at sea-level but they bulk out in the cabin and they run out of performance pretty quickly in hot and high conditions.  There are not many 'Hawks operating in Afghanistan, that's pretty well the roost of the Hook...and to a far lesser degree, the GAF H-53's...

Freedy Chef, the MH-47E/G folks I've talked to say the in-flight refuelling in a Chinook is relatively straightforward, as a Chinook and KC-130 have similar loading factors and respond to air turbulence in "relative" unison...makes the plug much easier than if you're bouncing around the sky, like the MH-60K guys talk about.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Feb 2005)

http://www.pinzgauer.uk.com/Intro.htm

Just to make sure the other side gets a look in.   Might want to take a look at the picture on this site and then check the specs on the vehicle.

It would also lift a C3-105, a ULFH M777 155, the Denel 105 as well as the lowly LG-1.

Just more grist.

Gross Vehicle Weight on the Vehicle is 3850kg (1400 kg payload included) or 2450 kg unloaded.   The loaded weight is within the capability of the EH-101.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm - EH-101 data.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRCH47SD.htm - Chinook data


----------



## Pencil Tech (20 Feb 2005)

Obviously there's still some Chinook expertise left in the CF, which is a great thing if we're going to get those helos again, but I was wondering whether the Pave Low   would ever be a contender with us - anyone?


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Feb 2005)

Pencil Tech, "hot and high" is an issue for many large, single main-rotor machines.  The Pave-Low, for a number of reasons, still performs much better at or near sea-level and not so well at higher altitudes and temperatures.  As well, I have heard second-hand (therefore open to verification) that the -D version of the H53 that the Germans are currently operating in Kabul, have significant limitations and are not capable of lifting much of their advertised, sea-level capability.  The Mi-26 Halo really is the only single-rotor machine I know of that has such a reserve of capacity that it can still lift a fair bit of it's 75,000lb+ payload at altitude.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Pencil Tech (22 Feb 2005)

Thanks Duey, that puts me in the picture. The Pave Low and the Chinook are both referred to generically as heavy-lift helicopters, but obviously they are not birds of a feather, so to speak.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Feb 2005)

Pencil Tech, in a nutshell, a single rotor helicopter has to counteract the main rotor's torque with a tail rotor (which eats up about 10-25% of its available power with the til-rotor .  On the other hand, a tandem rotor helicopter like the Chinook or the Labrador (a.k.a. CH-46 Sea Knight) spreads all available power to both forward and aft rotors.  Since the two rotors rotate in opposite directions, they balance each other's torque and all the power goes into lift, and none is wasted trying to offset the torque of the main rotor.  100% power to lift...definitely a good thing.  Tandmes are also far less succeptible to winds from different directions.  In some directions, winds will actually push against the tail-rotor of a single main-rotor machine, requiring even more power to be "wasted" on the tail-rotor to keep the helo straight.  Some guys think you'd have to be nuts to fly a tandem machine, but I always had a lot more trust in the 'Hooks intermeshed rotors than I did to a tail-rotor equipped machine.  Other counter-rotating helo configurations are the Kamov over-under (Ka-50 Werewolf) or Side-to-side tandems like the older Kaman Husky or the Kamov K-lifter.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Pencil Tech (23 Feb 2005)

Well Duey, I hope it won't be too long before you're flying one of those machines for us again.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2005)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/27/pf-944433.html

12-18 EH-101s, CH-47s or NH-90s?

Surely not the 90s?  Are they in the same league as either the 101 or the Hook?

Couple of other minor points - the article suggests we sold off about 15 CH-47s.  IIRC we only had 7 didn't we?

Also if the source cited has got somewhere that EH-101s can be had for 18 MUSD apiece then the price must have come down considerably - or maybe that is just the bare-bones price.  Most of the other 101s have been selling closer to 27 MUSD.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm

On the other hand if they can be bought at 18 MUSD per and we could afford 18 of them that couldn't be bad.




Military pores over options for new ships, helicopters

By STEPHEN THORNE




Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier comments on the 2005 federal budget in Ottawa Wednesday Feb 23. (CP/Fred Chartrand) 
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's military planners say they might buy or lease surplus U.S. ships to transport troops and equipment to hot spots the world over. 

They are also considering altering the design of new naval supply vessels to get the job done. 

The effort to make Canada's military more mobile is part of the strategy for spending being laid out in a defence policy review that's not yet public. 

Planners also want to purchase medium-lift helicopters to ferry troops and equipment around theatres of operation - but they're discovering the options are limited to some politically distasteful choices. 

One is a reconditioned version of the same Boeing Chinook helicopter Canada unloaded on the Dutch in the early 1990s. Another is the Agusta-Westland EH-101 helicopter, a marine version of which the Liberals cancelled in 1993. 

The chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, will discuss the future of the military Thursday at the Conference of Defence Association's annual meeting in Ottawa, Col. Brett Boudreau says. 

The federal budget last week promised $12.8 billion in new military spending over five years, the bulk of it starting to flow in 2008-09 as the long-awaited policy statement takes hold. 

Senior defence officials say some type of troop-carrying vessel - preferably between a carrier-like amphibious assault ship and a ferry-like roll-on, roll-off vessel - will form part of the $3.8 billion in policy-related expenditures promised but not detailed in last week's spending blueprint. 

The officials, who spoke to The Canadian Press on condition of anonymity, said amphibious assault vessels, designed for landing troops and equipment on a heavily defended shore, are more ship than Canada needs. 

So-called ro-ro vessels, however, require port facilities to land their cargoes - no good in a tsunami zone, for example - and, alone, are not enough, the officials said. 

One option Canada is considering is the new San Antonio Class ship, known as a landing platform dock, that can deploy a battalion of 700-800 troops, three air-cushioned landing craft and a handful of helicopters. 

The Americans ordered a dozen of the vessels but may only use nine, said Stephen Saunders, editor of Janes Fighting Ships. They will build the other three anyway and may be inclined to sell or lease one or more to Canada. 

"We are looking into that," said a defence official. 

Another option being considered is enlarging the design of the joint support ships, which are barely off the drawing board, and tacking one or two more on the current plans to purchase three, said senior planners. 

The joint support ships, whose primary role is refuelling and resupply, currently can carry up to 200 troops and a limited amount of equipment. 

Saunders said there are drawbacks to both options that are of particular concern to a small military such as Canada's, including how much sea and air support each requires. 

"Most nations that have gone into this expeditionary warfare business have realized that it doesn't just stop at the sharp end," he said. 

"There is a follow-on in order to sustain operations. You need either ro-ro ships or whatever to back up with ammunition, stores, medical - you name it." 

As for expanding the support vessels, "the more you try to squeeze into one ship, the less you get out of it," he cautioned. 

Italy and Spain are among several countries, particularly in NATO, that are reconfiguring their forces to encompass expeditionary capabilities, Saunders said. 

"I would entirely endorse it if that's the way Canada wants to go," he said. "Of course, whether Canada wants to pay for it is entirely another matter." 

The budget includes $2.8 billion specifically for, among other things, 12-18 transport helicopters starting in 2007-08. Those would replace about 15 Chinooks that Canada sold off more than a decade ago. 

Gunter Endres, editor of the online magazine Helicopter Markets and Systems, said the choice of lift helicopters is limited to the Chinook, the EH101 and Eurocopter's NH-90, unless Canada wants to buy Russian equipment. 

In one of his first acts after becoming prime minister in 1993, Jean Chretien cancelled a Tory contract to buy several dozen 101s, mainly to replace aging Sea Kings. 

After acquiring 15 Cormorants - a downscaled version of the 101 - for search and rescue, the Liberals finally committed last July to 28 Sikorsky H-92s to replace the Sea Kings. 

Boeing's workhorse is the biggest of the non-Russian transport choppers, capable of carrying 30 to 50 troops, and may be the best buy of the three, Endres said. The only price he had was $18 million US for the EH-101.


----------



## DJL (28 Feb 2005)

I wonder why the author excludes a troop carrying version of the S-92 or the CH-53X.........from a Liberal prospective, I fail to see why either of these choices would be politically upsetting, if anything, a Sikorsky purchase could further the political spin for the liberals choice of Sea King replacement.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2005)

I think you are right to this extent.  If he is including the NH-90 then there is no reason to exclude the S-92.  Having said that I believe that both of them have limited Cabin dimensions, limiting the possibility of carrying vehicles internally (a possibility with both the EH-101 and the CH-47).

As to the CH-53,  are those still in production?  I thought the Marines were looking at Ospreys to replace them and the Germans were looking at developing a Large Helicopter of their own design.


----------



## DJL (28 Feb 2005)

> I think you are right to this extent.  If he is including the NH-90 then there is no reason to exclude the S-92.  Having said that I believe that both of them have limited Cabin dimensions, limiting the possibility of carrying vehicles internally (a possibility with both the EH-101 and the CH-47).



I agree with you on the size limitations the of "NH-90 sized" helicopters, which, as you said shouldn't preclude the S-92........as for the CH-53, yes they are still in production and they are replacing earlier versions of the same aircraft. The Osprey is supposed to replace the Sea Knight.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Feb 2005)

I thought the CH 53 is being 'remanufactured", not being produced as a new product?


----------



## DJL (28 Feb 2005)

> I thought the CH 53 is being 'remanufactured", not being produced as a new product?



That was the original intent, but I believe it was decided it would be more cost effective to purchase new builds......I'll see what I can dig up.


Though it's not anything official on the CH-53x order, Sikorsky is still offering the CH-53 as one of it's five production models.

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI921,00.html


----------



## DJL (28 Feb 2005)

Here we go:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-53x.htm



> In March 2004 the Marine Corps decided to replace its heavy-lift helicopter fleet with a substantially redesigned version of the CH-53 Super Stallion. The Corps decided to buy 154 new CH-53s from Sikorsky to replace ones that have flown more missions than the 1960s design called for. The new CH-53(X) would look like the current E version but otherwise will be a new aircraft. This reverses the Corps' 2000 plan for a service life extension program that would have kept the original airframes while replacing the engines, rotor blades and cockpit.





I wonder if another favorable deal could be reached with Sikorsky for 12-18 CH-53X......


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2005)

Well I hope we take a look at them!! Good work DJL!!!


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2005)

> The Marine Corps announced in late 2000 a plan to remanufacture the CH-53E heavy lift helicopters. A contract award was expected in FY04, with full-rate production commencing in FY11. The upgrades to the helicopters would extend their operational life to 2025. The CH-53X program would upgrade 111 of the Corps' 165 CH-53Es to "like new" condition at a cost of about $21 million apiece, about* one-fifth the cost of a new replacement helicopter*. The CH-53X would reduce operational costs by 25%, or roughly $30 million per year. The new engines will be Rolls-Royce AE1107C. Upgrades include an all-composite rotor blade based on the Sikorsky S-92 blade, an elastomeric rotor head also modeled after the S-92, an improved cargo hook system, and a common glass cockpit identical to either the MV-22 or the UH-1Y cockpit. Load capability would be increased to 12,700 kg. The CH-53X would have a payload three times that of the CH-53E over a 200 nautical mile radius.



DJL, does that mean that New CH-53Xs will be available in 2011 at a price of 5x21 MUSD or 105 MUSD each?

I hope I am wrong.  Maybe we could buy some older models now and upgrade them later?

But it would be a nice piece of kit.


----------



## DJL (1 Mar 2005)

> DJL, does that mean that New CH-53Xs will be available in 2011 at a price of 5x21 MUSD or 105 MUSD each?
> 
> I hope I am wrong.  Maybe we could buy some older models now and upgrade them later?
> 
> But it would be a nice piece of kit.



Too be honest, I don't really know. One would think that based on the USMC choice to go with new builds, the 1/5 number was skewed and/or unattainable.

With that said, ~ 130 million (CDN) per unit does sound resonable (to me) when compared to the purchase of the 28 Cyclones..........I would guess, that the figure of 130 million per would include spares, training aides etc.....if not, I'd say poke it.


----------

