Ch-53 Vs. Ch-47 - Air Warriors

• Forums New posts Search forums
• What's new Featured content New posts Latest activity
• Members Current visitors

Log in Register What's new Search

Search

Everywhere Threads This forum This thread Search titles only Note By: Search Advanced search…

• New posts
• Search forums

Menu Log in Register Install the app Install How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask? Go here: Edit Account Details and Profile

• Forums
• U.S Marine Corps (USMC)
• Marines (USMC)

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.You should upgrade or use an alternative browser. Ch-53 vs. Ch-47

• Thread starter Thread starter Riper Snifle
• Start date Start date Oct 17, 2005

• 1
• 2

Next 1 of 2

Go to page

Go Next Last

Riper Snifle

OCC 194 TBS C 03-07

In comparing Marine Air to Army Air, the big helicopters in their inventory are the CH-53's and Ch-47's. The Ch-47 is only listed as a medium lift helicopter, and while it has the same internal cargo capacity as the Ch-53, it is listed as not being able to lift as much of a heavy load as the Ch-53. My question is why doesn't the Army pick up the Ch-53?? The Marines use both the Ch-46 and Ch-53, and the Navy and Air Force have Ch-53's so wouldn't adding a heavy lift helicopter be beneficial to them, or are there other reasons they do not pick it up??

Fly Navy

...Great Job!

pilot Super Moderator Contributor CH-47 is a Heavy Lift. Do a search, this topic was covered in depth about a month or two ago. J

jamnww

Hangar Four

pilot Ok, so then the question becomes, what are the benefits of the 47 over the 52, assuming that it would need to be better for the Army not to turn it in to favor the 53? Thoughts?

BigIron

Remotely piloted

pilot Super Moderator Contributor The Army does not use the CH-54 Tarhe any longer. You can only see these in use as the Erickson Sky Crane: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/h-54.htm The H-53 series of helicopters are no longer produced by Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. The CH-53E will be replaced by a similar airframe (now referred to as Heavy Lift Requirement (HLR)) by FY 2015 or later. Unknown if the Army is planning to purchase these.

E5B

Lineholder

pilot Super Moderator Our Sqdn got a brief on the potential 53X program by a Col from Pax river and most of us was surprised to hear that at altitude (8000 - 10000 MSL) the GE engines that the 53E has fall off in power quickly where as the CH-47 holds it's power (less of a bell curve) the higher it goes. Nothing can hold a candle to the 53E at or close to sea level. The dual rotor design is very effecient (46 & 47) and not having to deal with a tail rotor is always a plus. That being said, 53E is a very cabable machine and I can't imagine what the 53X is gonna bring to the table. M

mkoch

I'm not driving fast, I'm flying low

BigIron said: The Army does not use the CH-54 Tarhe any longer. You can only see these in use as the Erickson Sky Crane: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/h-54.htm The H-53 series of helicopters are no longer produced by Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. The CH-53E will be replaced by a similar airframe (now referred to as Heavy Lift Requirement (HLR)) by FY 2015 or later. Unknown if the Army is planning to purchase these. Click to expand...

Word from the annual Sikorsky managers briefing is that someone in the US military asked them to start back up on the H-53's, so they planned to do so. From the sound of it, its one of those "upgrade" deals where they take the original aircraft, replace everything except one of the tires and congress signs off on it because it was an "upgrade" and not a "new aircraft". J

jamnww

Hangar Four

pilot 53X details

• CH-53X would reduce operational costs by 25%, or roughly $30 million per year
• Upgrades include an all-composite rotor blade based on the Sikorsky S-92 blade
• common glass cockpit identical to either the MV-22
• Load capability would be increased to 12,700 kg
• CH-53X would have a payload three times that of the CH-53E over a 200 nautical mile radius

"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" "The Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) program, formerly known as the CH-53X program, is the solution to maintain the Super Stallion as the premier heavy-lift aircraft beyond the year 2025" Sounds like quite a step up...

ChuckMK23

Your Average GS - Back From Furlough!

pilot But just look at the sheer longevity of the CH-47 series - this went from a 30,000 lbs aircraft to over 50,000 lbs

Riper Snifle

OCC 194 TBS C 03-07

I have read in other threads that the Ch-47 is not a good option for carriers duty since its rotars don't fold so it wouldn't be much good in Navy or Marine duty. I can see where the Ch-47 is useful in many different roles, but because it can't lift as much as the Ch-53, wouldn't the Ch-53 be a good addition to the Army inventory? The Air Force uses Ch-53's for CSAR missions, so wouldn't it also be useful in Special Forces missions? I know the Army is limited in which airframes it can have by the Air Force since the Air Force was originally part of the Army and broke away on its own in 1947, but would those limitations extend to helicopters?? I know there is a reason the Army doesn't have the Ch-53 (maybe they just don't want it), I am just curious at what that reason might be.

mmx1

Woof!

pilot Contributor I know the Royal Marines use the 47 on their LHD's and love them; and the altitude performance came in handy in Afghanistan - the 47's were sometimes the only helo that could manage adecent payload in the mountains.

Fly Navy

...Great Job!

pilot Super Moderator Contributor

Riper Snifle said: I have read in other threads that the Ch-47 is not a good option for carriers duty since its rotars don't fold so it wouldn't be much good in Navy or Marine duty. I can see where the Ch-47 is useful in many different roles, but because it can't lift as much as the Ch-53, wouldn't the Ch-53 be a good addition to the Army inventory? The Air Force uses Ch-53's for CSAR missions, so wouldn't it also be useful in Special Forces missions? I know the Army is limited in which airframes it can have by the Air Force since the Air Force was originally part of the Army and broke away on its own in 1947, but would those limitations extend to helicopters?? I know there is a reason the Army doesn't have the Ch-53 (maybe they just don't want it), I am just curious at what that reason might be. Click to expand...

The -53 and -47 have been around for some time. If the Army wanted them, they would have them. J

jamnww

Hangar Four

pilot

Fly Navy said: The -53 and -47 have been around for some time. If the Army wanted them, they would have them. Click to expand...

The Army does have teh -47

Fly Navy

...Great Job!

pilot Super Moderator Contributor

jamnww said: The Army does have teh -47 Click to expand...

Let me clarify. If the Army wanted -53s, they would have them. J

jamnww

Hangar Four

pilot

Fly Navy said: Let me clarify. If the Army wanted -53s, they would have them. Click to expand...

I could agree with that...then again the manufacture doesn't make them anymore...instead they are only refitting the older ones.

Fly Navy

...Great Job!

pilot Super Moderator Contributor

jamnww said: I could agree with that...then again the manufacture doesn't make them anymore...instead they are only refitting the older ones. Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. If they wanted to buy them when they were available, they would have.

• 1
• 2

Next 1 of 2

Go to page

Go Next Last You must log in or register to reply here. Share: Facebook X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Pinterest Tumblr WhatsApp Email Share Link

• Forums
• U.S Marine Corps (USMC)
• Marines (USMC)

Back Top