30 MUSD for a new CHINOOK CH-47F
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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?
How effective has mid-air refueling with helicopters been, so far?
- Reaction score
- 18,468
- Points
- 1,360
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
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
- Reaction score
- 7,330
- Points
- 1,160
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
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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?
- Reaction score
- 18,468
- Points
- 1,360
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
Cheers,
Duey
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 18,468
- Points
- 1,360
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
Cheers,
Duey
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well Duey, I hope it won't be too long before you're flying one of those machines for us again. 
- Reaction score
- 7,330
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 7,330
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 863
- Points
- 1,060
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
Here we go:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-53x.htm
I wonder if another favorable deal could be reached with Sikorsky for 12-18 CH-53X......
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-53x.htm
I wonder if another favorable deal could be reached with Sikorsky for 12-18 CH-53X......
- Reaction score
- 863
- Points
- 1,060
Well I hope we take a look at them!! Good work DJL!!!
- Reaction score
- 7,330
- Points
- 1,160
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.
Similar threads
