the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Seen,
What is your opinion on reaction time of the lift move?
dileas
tess
Cdn. troops exchange fire with insurgents
- Thread starter Scoobie Newbie
- Start date
Seen,
What is your opinion on reaction time of the lift move?
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
the 48th regulator said:
I have no comments on it, but from the looks of it, it looks fairly inefficient if you are lifting using a Black Hawk, as you pretty much have to strip the gun down to the bare minimum in order to lift it with a Black Hawk. You either have the Black Hawk running 3 times back and forth, bringing the crew, then the ammo, then the gun, or you have 2-3 Black Hawk's going to lift just one gun and everything that goes with it. A EH-101 would look better, but only marginally so, as it looks like you need to do two runs (the gun can go with the crew now, but the ammo comes seperate), but really, to lift a useful combat load plus the crew, a CH-47 Chinook or a CH-53E Sea Stallion would be a whole lot better. Haul the gun, crew and ammo all in a single lift. What I would like to see is some sort of CF heavy lift chopper (either Chinook or Sea Stallion, or something in the same catergory) in service.
- Reaction score
- 16,446
- Points
- 1,010
Armymatters- would you care to post the 8,000 ft performance charts (both In and Out of Ground Effect) for the UH-60M? I'm having trouble verifying your claim...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
SeaKingTacco said:
Check the Sikorsky website and their PDF regarding the Black Hawk.
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,167,00.pdf
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,245,00.pdf
Look at the charts regarding hover ceiling, it gives a decent idea of what it can do.
Assume the Black Hawk is fully loaded (at max external gross weight, which is 23,500 lbs), according to the charts, at 8000 ft, and ambient temperatures of around +10C we will need ground effect just to get the Black Hawk airborne with the load, if we are operating clean, and the gun is at production weight. Once the load is airborne, and we are in foward flight, the load will stay airborne. The charts are the the -L model, which only has uprated engines (compared to the baseline model), compared to the -M, which features a new wide chord composite spar main rotor blades (which will provide 500lb more lift than the current UH-60L blade), and the General Electric T700-GE-701D engine, which is even more powerful than the ones on the -L.
In short, with the -L, it is a bit iffy, but possible, but with the -M, it is definetely possible, barely.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
The US Army tested the M777 in its intial design weight being lifted by a UH-60H, which was around 8500 pounds. However, the final design came in at 9300 pounds and 9800 pounds for the A1 version.
As a result it can only be lifted by the Ch-47,CH-53 or the Osprey. Also to lift the payload in Afghanistan with the higher altitudes would be a safety issue. It could do it in an emergency and only for a short distance. There are enough Chinook's in theater to lift a couple of M777's if the need arises.
As a result it can only be lifted by the Ch-47,CH-53 or the Osprey. Also to lift the payload in Afghanistan with the higher altitudes would be a safety issue. It could do it in an emergency and only for a short distance. There are enough Chinook's in theater to lift a couple of M777's if the need arises.
- Reaction score
- 16,446
- Points
- 1,010
That's not the way I read the charts (which are only for and S-70A and the -60L), but, hey, I guess you are the expert.
Can Duey wade in here?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I think he's bucking for a job with Janes Defence Weekly. ;D
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
Low rate production of the UH-60M began last year with 22 airframes and will be increased to 90 a year by 2012. There are 1200 UH-60's to be upgraded and there may be up to 300 new production UH-60's.
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/PRNEWS/20050606/2005_06_06_14_1154_1384409
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/PRNEWS/20050606/2005_06_06_14_1154_1384409
- Reaction score
- 21,371
- Points
- 1,360
Holy heck...last time I read this thread it was comfortably on the tracks! 
Armymatters, before you even get to the chart, the 'Hawk's hook is only rated to 9,000lbs, current M777's and future developments are non-starters. Geo, Goober and Tomahawk are right...'Hook is the only thing in theatre to lift this puppy (the M777). I'd recommend that before you start cranking your brain too hard on the load charts, that you think about the whole picture and remember that a helo is not very useful without its crew and some fuel. Basic weight means lubricating fluids and NOTHING else in the aircraft. Crew, pers gear, fuel, reserves, ammo, etc...all eat into your payload. Then think about using the beasties in ISA+30 and ISA+40 conditions at altitudes several thousands of feet above home aerodrome elevation (which I'm sure you know from your scholastic research) and you'll start to get the picture about conditions over here. When a machine like the Chinook can only comfortably deliver 1/2 to 2/3's at best of its sea-level payload where it has to be delivered, there's something to be said for how demanding the environment is. Oh, BTW, the -60M's 701Ds have better hot and high performance than the L's 701Cs, but the MGB doesn't have an increased rating so the M's engines' benefit are only realized for OEI conditions.
One should be weary of taking any manufacturer's glossy performance charts to indicate true battlefield performance. Only the charts found in the ac flight manual have any real value...everything else is making the machine look impressive.
Let's just look at the S-70A (Int'l ver) charts for a sec... http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,167,00.pdf...the HOGE chart on page 16 of 24 in the linked document. I'll use ISA+30, which roughly slides the PA/MGTOW intersect line to the right by 10* throughout the chart (a fair assumption, but not exact). I want to see what kind of slung load I can insert at a location 3000' above KAF's aerodrome (~3000' itself), so I'm looking at a pressure altitude of 6000'. I know of several locations that have been "visited" above this, but I'm just picking 6000' insertion altitude as "kind" example to the -60.
Start at 6000' PA on the left. Drive right along the 6000' line until you hit ISA+20 slant intersect (reference down to about 23*C) and slide 10 more degrees to the right along the 6000' PA line (to get to ISA+30 equivalent). Now take a pen or straight edge and align it with that point along the 6000' PA line that represents 10 degrees past the ISA+20 slant line....now rotate your straight edge about 30 CW, to make it perpendicular to the MHOGEW (max hover out of ground-effect weight) curves and you should see that the maximum permissable hover weight is about 18,800 lbs. Now consider the basic weight is 11,744...which I'll be kind to an aircraft with defensive EW suite and countermeasures and add 356 lbs...okay, up to 12,100...add four crew (pilot x 2, FE, LM) with their gear...300 lbs each is totally reasonable with PPE and survival gear, etc...1,200 added to 12,100 equals 13,300. Okay, now time to add armament (lets say 2 x C6/M249 with ammo)...another 550 lbs...up to 13,850lbs. Now give the 'Hawk a 75nm radius of action, with 10 minutes to hover and dispatch the load and return to base and keep 20 min reserves...(150nm at 60 kts = 2.5 hrs at 1,500 lbs/hr = 3,750lbs fuel for transit + 200 for the 10 minute hover + 500 lbs for reserves = 4,450lbs fuel)...means 4,450lbs fuel to the 13,850 operational weight equals 18,300lbs....which subtracted from the 18,800lbs max hover out of ground effect at 6000'PA and ISA+30 =.....
500 lbs on the hook...
Wow...that's pretty good, how many IMPs was that again???
Armymatters, I won't directly recommend that you stay in your lane, but parroting corporate glossiness without deeper, dare I say, operationally-experienced analysis is a recipe for embarrassment...
Cheers,
Duey
p.s. Good on the boys for returning fire...any word as to whether we used Excalibur rounds or std 155?
Armymatters, before you even get to the chart, the 'Hawk's hook is only rated to 9,000lbs, current M777's and future developments are non-starters. Geo, Goober and Tomahawk are right...'Hook is the only thing in theatre to lift this puppy (the M777). I'd recommend that before you start cranking your brain too hard on the load charts, that you think about the whole picture and remember that a helo is not very useful without its crew and some fuel. Basic weight means lubricating fluids and NOTHING else in the aircraft. Crew, pers gear, fuel, reserves, ammo, etc...all eat into your payload. Then think about using the beasties in ISA+30 and ISA+40 conditions at altitudes several thousands of feet above home aerodrome elevation (which I'm sure you know from your scholastic research) and you'll start to get the picture about conditions over here. When a machine like the Chinook can only comfortably deliver 1/2 to 2/3's at best of its sea-level payload where it has to be delivered, there's something to be said for how demanding the environment is. Oh, BTW, the -60M's 701Ds have better hot and high performance than the L's 701Cs, but the MGB doesn't have an increased rating so the M's engines' benefit are only realized for OEI conditions.
One should be weary of taking any manufacturer's glossy performance charts to indicate true battlefield performance. Only the charts found in the ac flight manual have any real value...everything else is making the machine look impressive.
Let's just look at the S-70A (Int'l ver) charts for a sec... http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,167,00.pdf...the HOGE chart on page 16 of 24 in the linked document. I'll use ISA+30, which roughly slides the PA/MGTOW intersect line to the right by 10* throughout the chart (a fair assumption, but not exact). I want to see what kind of slung load I can insert at a location 3000' above KAF's aerodrome (~3000' itself), so I'm looking at a pressure altitude of 6000'. I know of several locations that have been "visited" above this, but I'm just picking 6000' insertion altitude as "kind" example to the -60.
Start at 6000' PA on the left. Drive right along the 6000' line until you hit ISA+20 slant intersect (reference down to about 23*C) and slide 10 more degrees to the right along the 6000' PA line (to get to ISA+30 equivalent). Now take a pen or straight edge and align it with that point along the 6000' PA line that represents 10 degrees past the ISA+20 slant line....now rotate your straight edge about 30 CW, to make it perpendicular to the MHOGEW (max hover out of ground-effect weight) curves and you should see that the maximum permissable hover weight is about 18,800 lbs. Now consider the basic weight is 11,744...which I'll be kind to an aircraft with defensive EW suite and countermeasures and add 356 lbs...okay, up to 12,100...add four crew (pilot x 2, FE, LM) with their gear...300 lbs each is totally reasonable with PPE and survival gear, etc...1,200 added to 12,100 equals 13,300. Okay, now time to add armament (lets say 2 x C6/M249 with ammo)...another 550 lbs...up to 13,850lbs. Now give the 'Hawk a 75nm radius of action, with 10 minutes to hover and dispatch the load and return to base and keep 20 min reserves...(150nm at 60 kts = 2.5 hrs at 1,500 lbs/hr = 3,750lbs fuel for transit + 200 for the 10 minute hover + 500 lbs for reserves = 4,450lbs fuel)...means 4,450lbs fuel to the 13,850 operational weight equals 18,300lbs....which subtracted from the 18,800lbs max hover out of ground effect at 6000'PA and ISA+30 =.....
500 lbs on the hook...
Wow...that's pretty good, how many IMPs was that again???
Armymatters, I won't directly recommend that you stay in your lane, but parroting corporate glossiness without deeper, dare I say, operationally-experienced analysis is a recipe for embarrassment...
Cheers,
Duey
p.s. Good on the boys for returning fire...any word as to whether we used Excalibur rounds or std 155?
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Armymatters said:
Hardly the kind of margin on which you would want to be hinging the reliability of deploying your fire support in operations.
- Reaction score
- 16,446
- Points
- 1,010
Duey- thank-you for the straight goods. Always a pleasure dealing with the pros!
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Duey said:Holy heck...last time I read this thread it was comfortably on the tracks!
Armymatters, before you even get to the chart, the 'Hawk's hook is only rated to 9,000lbs, current M777's and future developments are non-starters. Geo, Goober and Tomahawk are right...'Hook is the only thing in theatre to lift this puppy (the M777). I'd recommend that before you start cranking your brain too hard on the load charts, that you think about the whole picture and remember that a helo is not very useful without its crew and some fuel. Basic weight means lubricating fluids and NOTHING else in the aircraft. Crew, pers gear, fuel, reserves, ammo, etc...all eat into your payload. Then think about using the beasties in ISA+30 and ISA+40 conditions at altitudes several thousands of feet above home aerodrome elevation (which I'm sure you know from your scholastic research) and you'll start to get the picture about conditions over here. When a machine like the Chinook can only comfortably deliver 1/2 to 2/3's at best of its sea-level payload where it has to be delivered, there's something to be said for how demanding the environment is. Oh, BTW, the -60M's 701Ds have better hot and high performance than the L's 701Cs, but the MGB doesn't have an increased rating so the M's engines' benefit are only realized for OEI conditions.
One should be weary of taking any manufacturer's glossy performance charts to indicate true battlefield performance. Only the charts found in the ac flight manual have any real value...everything else is making the machine look impressive.
Let's just look at the S-70A (Int'l ver) charts for a sec... http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,167,00.pdf...the HOGE chart on page 16 of 24 in the linked document. I'll use ISA+30, which roughly slides the PA/MGTOW intersect line to the right by 10* throughout the chart (a fair assumption, but not exact). I want to see what kind of slung load I can insert at a location 3000' above KAF's aerodrome (~3000' itself), so I'm looking at a pressure altitude of 6000'. I know of several locations that have been "visited" above this, but I'm just picking 6000' insertion altitude as "kind" example to the -60.
Start at 6000' PA on the left. Drive right along the 6000' line until you hit ISA+20 slant intersect (reference down to about 23*C) and slide 10 more degrees to the right along the 6000' PA line (to get to ISA+30 equivalent). Now take a pen or straight edge and align it with that point along the 6000' PA line that represents 10 degrees past the ISA+20 slant line....now rotate your straight edge about 30 CW, to make it perpendicular to the MHOGEW (max hover out of ground-effect weight) curves and you should see that the maximum permissable hover weight is about 18,800 lbs. Now consider the basic weight is 11,744...which I'll be kind to an aircraft with defensive EW suite and countermeasures and add 356 lbs...okay, up to 12,100...add four crew (pilot x 2, FE, LM) with their gear...300 lbs each is totally reasonable with PPE and survival gear, etc...1,200 added to 12,100 equals 13,300. Okay, now time to add armament (lets say 2 x C6/M249 with ammo)...another 550 lbs...up to 13,850lbs. Now give the 'Hawk a 75nm radius of action, with 10 minutes to hover and dispatch the load and return to base and keep 20 min reserves...(150nm at 60 kts = 2.5 hrs at 1,500 lbs/hr = 3,750lbs fuel for transit + 200 for the 10 minute hover + 500 lbs for reserves = 4,450lbs fuel)...means 4,450lbs fuel to the 13,850 operational weight equals 18,300lbs....which subtracted from the 18,800lbs max hover out of ground effect at 6000'PA and ISA+30 =.....
500 lbs on the hook...
Wow...that's pretty good, how many IMPs was that again???
Armymatters, I won't directly recommend that you stay in your lane, but parroting corporate glossiness without deeper, dare I say, operationally-experienced analysis is a recipe for embarrassment...
Cheers,
Duey
p.s. Good on the boys for returning fire...any word as to whether we used Excalibur rounds or std 155?
So what you're saying is NDHQ needs to write up a spec sheet for 500lb 155mm howizter? Sorry, 300lb 155mm howitzer so we've got some additional capacity for ammo.
Matt. ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
"They turned their cannons on the insurgents, first sending up flares to illuminate the area before dropping explosive rounds."
Why illuminate the area? When we have the night vision advantage it seems to me we should lose it by giving light to the enemy that has no night vision equipment. I don't understand. ???
Why illuminate the area? When we have the night vision advantage it seems to me we should lose it by giving light to the enemy that has no night vision equipment. I don't understand. ???
Similar threads
