CH-53K King Stalion vs. CH-47F Chinook

Helicopters and tilt-rotor aircraft
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3281
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post01 Apr 2017, 00:22

This is mostly in relation to a discussion that showed up in the comments of this article:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... helicopter

There's the basic question of how the two aircraft compare, but I'm suspicious that the stats out there may not be accurate. For instance, I've always heard that the Chinook is much faster than single rotor helicopters, but it is listed as having the same 170 kt max speed as the Stallion.

Anyone know how they really stack up? Why the marines chose the King Stallion?
Last edited by count_to_10 on 01 Apr 2017, 19:38, edited 1 time in total.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Apr 2017, 16:18

Image

That's why!

Just kidding. The primary reason is the 53 is better for shipboard use. It takes up less space on the deck. From example the size comparison doesn't show that the difference in undercarriage allows the 53 to hang it's rear end over the deck. You can't do that with the chinook. If space isn't a concern the 47 has advantages of course. If space is a concern (like it always is on a ship) then the 53 wins.


Image

The airframe is more adaptable. The only thing you can do with a chinook is fold the blades. It's size is fixed

This is a tricky question, because the answer is not there if going off simple stats. In difference to the comments, those people don't know what they are talking about. And that shouldnt surprise, because mark Thompson is a lying manipulative faggot who has been wrong, especially about the USMC many times. He either knows the truth and is obscuring it (the article smacks of that) or he is ignorant. I will leave it up to you which is worse.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Apr 2017, 20:25

Bottom line OP, the people in the comments don't have the first hand knowledge of working at sea with helicopters and the small but important details that favor the CH-53 in this regrard.

Moreover, I doubt it will be just the USMC purchasing the K stallion. The Navy will buy some, and I'm willing to bet Japan and some others. Ch-47s can't minesweep, which is abig 53 mission for the Navy

You can do 170 knots in a chinook but it will, according to a crew chief I talked to, "vibrate the fillings out of your teeth"
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post01 Apr 2017, 21:13

XanderCrews wrote:You can do 170 knots in a chinook but it will, according to a crew chief I talked to, "vibrate the fillings out of your teeth"

Who cares about fillings in a combat situation?

Point is that they both fulfill different jobs that the other cannot simply do. If people are not able to see that, then it is not the failure of a platform but just the narrow views of said people.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post01 Apr 2017, 23:40

botsing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:You can do 170 knots in a chinook but it will, according to a crew chief I talked to, "vibrate the fillings out of your teeth"

Who cares about fillings in a combat situation?


I think he was emphasizing that the ride would be almost prohibitively uncomfortable.

Its Typically only used in extreme situations and should not be confused with normal combat operations. Which is where people get into trouble because they think the unusual is the norm...
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3281
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post02 Apr 2017, 04:27

XanderCrews wrote: Ch-47s can't minesweep, which is abig 53 mission for the Navy

Do you mean that it physically can not be made to minesweep, or just that the current version hasn't been outfitted with the appropriate equipment?

As far as speed goes, single rotor craft have a hard limit due to retreating blade stall that tandem rotors don't necessarily have. However, if the rotors aren't scheduled to go flat on retreat, then they will still have the same problem. Still I'm not sure how the two having the same top speed squares with the apparent common knowledge the the Chinook is the fastest helicopter in the fleet.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post04 Apr 2017, 12:17

XanderCrews wrote:
botsing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:You can do 170 knots in a chinook but it will, according to a crew chief I talked to, "vibrate the fillings out of your teeth"

Who cares about fillings in a combat situation?


I think he was emphasizing that the ride would be almost prohibitively uncomfortable.

Its Typically only used in extreme situations and should not be confused with normal combat operations. Which is where people get into trouble because they think the unusual is the norm...

Thank you for clearing that up, it can indeed lead to the wrong assumptions.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post04 Apr 2017, 13:01

There is also of course rated speeds (treated and verified) vs actual limits.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 300
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post06 Apr 2017, 09:09

XanderCrews wrote:
The primary reason is the 53 is better for shipboard use. It takes up less space on the deck. From example the size comparison doesn't show that the difference in undercarriage allows the 53 to hang it's rear end over the deck. You can't do that with the chinook. If space isn't a concern the 47 has advantages of course. If space is a concern (like it always is on a ship) then the 53 wins.


I hear this time and time again. I have had this conversation before as well. A Ch-47 is parked NOSE first on a ship, as it is rear wheel steering equipped, the forward gear are fixed. Also with the atrocious blade storage you would have a 30 foot blade in the middle of the flight deck. The Brits had a good picture of it but I cannot find it, here is almost the same thing on a Nimitz class, it is a deck edge elevator but the parking is the same.

Image

To the minesweeping claim if the Japanese can replace the H-53E with EH-101's then a Chinook can haul the newer sleds as well. Someone just has to do the configuration and testing. For the UK or AU, that would be a lot cheaper then introducing a new helicopter.

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... ter-japan/
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3281
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post07 Apr 2017, 01:01

h-bomb wrote:
I hear this time and time again. I have had this conversation before as well. A Ch-47 is parked NOSE first on a ship, as it is rear wheel steering equipped, the forward gear are fixed. Also with the atrocious blade storage you would have a 30 foot blade in the middle of the flight deck. The Brits had a good picture of it but I cannot find it, here is almost the same thing on a Nimitz class, it is a deck edge elevator but the parking is the same.

To the minesweeping claim if the Japanese can replace the H-53E with EH-101's then a Chinook can haul the newer sleds as well. Someone just has to do the configuration and testing. For the UK or AU, that would be a lot cheaper then introducing a new helicopter.

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... ter-japan/

I can't see the image. Is there something that prevents the Chinook from being fitted with collapsing rotors?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5229
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post07 Apr 2017, 04:24

I believe this is the one in question.

chinooksonaircraftcarrierelevator.jpg
"There I was. . ."
Offline

thepointblank

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 11:17
  • Location: The True North Strong and Free

Unread post07 Apr 2017, 06:19

count_to_10 wrote:
h-bomb wrote:
I hear this time and time again. I have had this conversation before as well. A Ch-47 is parked NOSE first on a ship, as it is rear wheel steering equipped, the forward gear are fixed. Also with the atrocious blade storage you would have a 30 foot blade in the middle of the flight deck. The Brits had a good picture of it but I cannot find it, here is almost the same thing on a Nimitz class, it is a deck edge elevator but the parking is the same.

To the minesweeping claim if the Japanese can replace the H-53E with EH-101's then a Chinook can haul the newer sleds as well. Someone just has to do the configuration and testing. For the UK or AU, that would be a lot cheaper then introducing a new helicopter.

http://www.naval-technology.com/project ... ter-japan/

I can't see the image. Is there something that prevents the Chinook from being fitted with collapsing rotors?

The CH-47 doesn't have a blade self-folding capability, but the blades can be de-linked at the lead/lag damper and swung into an "administratively stowed" position resting on specially constructed blade stands over the central fuselage so that the blades fit entirely within the foot print of the Chinook.

A powered folding head, like on other marinized helicopters would require a larger rotor head for starters.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7673
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post16 May 2018, 23:52

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1420
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post05 Jun 2018, 02:57

count_to_10 wrote:This is mostly in relation to a discussion that showed up in the comments of this article:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us- ... helicopter

There's the basic question of how the two aircraft compare, but I'm suspicious that the stats out there may not be accurate. For instance, I've always heard that the Chinook is much faster than single rotor helicopters, but it is listed as having the same 170 kt max speed as the Stallion.

Anyone know how they really stack up? Why the marines chose the King Stallion?


Here's my take on why the USMC went with the CH-53K instead of a variant of the CH-47:

Progression of recent Attack helicopters: AH-1G (initial US Army loaners), AH-1J (purpose built USMC variant with 2 engines), AH-1T, AH-1W, and currently the AH-1Z. Notice they did not select the AH-64 ,which was something they were interested in.

Pedigree of recent Medium Utility Helicopters: UH-1E (marinized version of UH-1B/C), UH-1N (same engine pack as the AH-1J/T), and now UH-1Y. The H-60 airframe is more than capable of maritime operations as demonstrated by 3+ decades in Navy service, yet the USMC only flies H-60s (VH-60N Nighthawks) in HMX-1 as part of the Marine One fleet. Those birds recently got glass cockpits and getting replaced any time soon.

Heavy Lift Helicopters: CH-53A, then CH-53D, CH-53E (supersized version of 53A/D with 3 engines and 7 MRBs). CH-47 was bypassed even though the USMC operated a similar aircraft (all be it smaller) in the CH-46, affectionately known as the Phrog. Now we're on the CH-53K King Stallion, which is still a 53 variant.

Do yall see the trend? If we roll the model number and get the Devil Dogs something different, their overlords in the Department of the Navy and the socialist scumbags in Congress will get suspicious and start chopping budgets and programs. It has nothing to do with the capability or common sense and everything to do with money and internal/external politics. Even being a US Army aviation veteran, I still saw that the USMC got the short end of the stick with lobbying, overly political generals, budgeting, intra-service turf wars or lack of support from those two flavors of politicians we like to call Democraps and Republicons. My brothers and sisters in our sister branch have long suffered the short end of the stick. At this point I'm glad they got the F-35B and the MV-22 and hope FVL yields much fruit for them. Even this old Army Dog has to admit the Marines are America's premier combined-arms, expeditionary force. They do combined arms better than the Soviets at a fraction of the price which means they are great economy of force too. Sadly, they've never really been able to be "first to fight", because the Navy, Army, Airforce will not let Marines be Marines. The Devil Dogs are always getting muzzled and it isn't right.

I think the CH-47 platform in a USMC variant would do just about everything a CH-53K could do, for the most part. Given it is less prone to retreating blade stalls it can probably fly faster. With all the power dedicated to two main rotor systems instead of worrying about a tail rotor, it might just do better at higher altitudes. For the most part, the Marines got a good bird in the Kilo model Stallion. I hope other countries buy it so at least some amount of economy of scale can be realized. The next administration might push to chop defense spending.
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1420
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post05 Jun 2018, 03:09

XanderCrews wrote:Bottom line OP, the people in the comments don't have the first hand knowledge of working at sea with helicopters and the small but important details that favor the CH-53 in this regrard.

Moreover, I doubt it will be just the USMC purchasing the K stallion. The Navy will buy some, and I'm willing to bet Japan and some others. Ch-47s can't minesweep, which is abig 53 mission for the Navy

You can do 170 knots in a chinook but it will, according to a crew chief I talked to, "vibrate the fillings out of your teeth"


No. I've flown in Chinooks in a combat zone where they like to fly as fast as they can and we did not vibrate like crazy. Those were CH-47Ds. The new CH-47F, with it's single piece machined airframe components are supposed to have an even smoother ride. I do not see how a CH-47 of some variant "can't minesweep". Chinooks, if prepped by the crew, can not only land on water, but float indefinitely. That navalized enough for you? What favors the USMC is that they are getting something much better than the worn CH-53E, without really getting a clean sheet design. Changing letters protects USMC helicopter programs better than changing numbers. Marine clean sheet designs are ripe targets for Navy Admirals, Army Generals, lobbyist for those branches and politicians.
Next

Return to Rotary Wing Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests