Germany will decide between CH 47F and CH 53K

Decision will be made end of 2016 or 2017
Sign of contract 2018
First Delivery 2018
Probably 1:1 replacement of the current CH53G/GA fleet

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ea-420964/

A little question... How can both helicopters be ferried by A400M, C-17 and C-5? Or do they need to rent a Beluga from Airbus?


David

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 1): A little question... How can both helicopters be ferried by A400M, C-17 and C-5?

Chinooks and CH-53s both fit into the C-5 and C-17, not sure about the A-400 though.

Ch-53 in C-17

Chinook in C-17

Quoting columba (Thread starter): Germany will decide between CH 47F and CH 53K Decision will be made end of 2016 or 2017 Sign of contract 2018 First Delivery 2018

The CH-53K is not due to IOC with the Marines until 2018 so I doubt the Germans will get access to it that year or probably even the next. The Chinook should be available though.

Quote: Overall, the program plans to reach operational status by 2019, a full four years behind its original schedule.

http://defensetech.org/2014/10/21/ma...pares-new-ch-53k-for-first-flight/

http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/aircraft/a400m/a400mabout.aspx answers in the positive for the Chinook on the A400M:



Perhaps the Stallion is too tall for this kind of loading scheme....

Stallion Height: 27 ft 9 in (8.46 m)
A400M Payload Height: Up to four metres / 13ft 1in    No...

Anytime you carry a helicopter in a cargo aircraft, it involves significant amounts of disassembly. Depending on the type and the size of both the aircraft and the helicopter, you are looking at anywhere from a few days to more than a week to reassemble and flight test the helicopter, plus you will need to have all of the tooling and equipment on hand to reassemble the helicopter.

Basically, its easier to fly the helicopter to where you need it to be and take refueling and rest stops along the way. For example, CH-147F's have been flown across Canada from Petawawa to Vancouver before, all done via ferrying the aircraft, rather than stuffing it into a C-17.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 2): The CH-53K is not due to IOC with the Marines until 2018 so I doubt the Germans will get access to it that year or probably even the next. The Chinook should be available though.

Was a typo first delivery 2022 - sorry

Delivery of the first helicopter is planed for 2022. Signing of the contract is planed for 2018. This means both CH-53K and CH-47F are in the running. I personally hope for the CH-53K just because I am so used to the Stallion.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 3): http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/aircraft/a400m/a400mabout.aspx answers in the positive for the Chinook on the A400M:

Thanks.

Quoting columba (Reply 5): Was a typo first delivery 2022 - sorry

That makes more sense. While I like the Chinook there is something beastly about the CH-53K.

From a cost perspective a Chinook for the US costs approx US$30 million each so the Germans are likely to pay at least a bit more than that with FMS costs.

Quote: In FY 2016, the unit cost of a CH-47F New Build is $29.81 million (total flyaway cost). The airframe costs $21.98 million, the two T55-GA-714A engines cost $2.12 million ($1.06 million each), and the avionics package costs $1.38 million.

http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/CH-47-Chinook.html

The same source lists the CH-53K at approx US$75 million.

Quote: The DoD estimates the CH-53K will have a price tag of $75 million.

That is a significant price difference between the two airframes, especially if they want a one of one replacement.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4): Basically, its easier to fly the helicopter to where you need it to be and take refueling and rest stops along the way. For example, CH-147F's have been flown across Canada from Petawawa to Vancouver before, all done via ferrying the aircraft, rather than stuffing it into a C-17.

Perhaps we will see a KC-130 purchase from the Germans similar to the French to overcome the A-400M rotary refuelling issues?

Thank you for your answers on air transportability.  


David

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7): Perhaps we will see a KC-130 purchase from the Germans similar to the French to overcome the A-400M rotary refuelling issues?

For a simple ferry flight, its easier to make stops along the way, so the pilots can get out, eat, go to the toilet, and sleep before setting off.

It's a much easier proposition to do that than to disassemble a helicopter for transport and reassemble it, even when you are heading from Ontario to BC and a C-17 is already going to the same location!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):

In the Gulf War, US helicopters were shipped, even from Germany. I guess the war preparations took a couple of months anyway.

When Germany bought the CH-53, was the CH-47 considered? I guess the modern CH-47 is close to the original CH-53 in payload while the CH-53 has grown even bigger.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4): Anytime you carry a helicopter in a cargo aircraft, it involves significant amounts of disassembly. Depending on the type and the size of both the aircraft and the helicopter, you are looking at anywhere from a few days to more than a week to reassemble and flight test the helicopter, plus you will need to have all of the tooling and equipment on hand to reassemble the helicopter.

It varies quite a bit. I've seen HMX-1 unload a VH-60 from a C-17 and have it rotors turning maybe 2 hours later.

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 10): In the Gulf War, US helicopters were shipped, even from Germany. I guess the war preparations took a couple of months anyway.

AH-64s were flown in by transports for the start of Desert Shield. The helicopters of units arriving later in theatre were shipped in together will all the rest of the heavy equipment.

The A400M has slightly (if any) more height than the C17 but is narrower 4m versus 5.49m.
C5 is ~.2m higher and in width .4m wider than the C17.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4): Anytime you carry a helicopter in a cargo aircraft, it involves significant amounts of disassembly. Depending on the type and the size of both the aircraft and the helicopter, you are looking at anywhere from a few days to more than a week to reassemble and flight test the helicopter, plus you will need to have all of the tooling and equipment on hand to reassemble the helicopter. Basically, its easier to fly the helicopter to where you need it to be and take refueling and rest stops along the way. For example, CH-147F's have been flown across Canada from Petawawa to Vancouver before, all done via ferrying the aircraft, rather than stuffing it into a C-17.

That's not correct for several reasons. Helicopters aren't going to fly across oceans. I've transported dozens of helicopters from the USA to Afghanistan and all points in between. How are you going to ferry them that far? Also, your cargo prep times are off. Those helicopters are usually flying the next day, and can be flown within hours if the maintainers are working hard at it. Same for disassembly.

Wear & tear on the airframe & crew plus increased transit time outweighs any advantage of ferrying a helicopter. Plus if the helo goes tech enroute all bets are off.

My present client operates Blackhawks and will airlift the airframe vs ferrying if airlift is available.

Can't remember if the transmission and rotor head need to come off a CH-53... but some helos require that level of disassembly for airlift.

Both are awesome platforms. May Germany pick the best helo for their airmen.

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 15): Wear & tear on the airframe & crew plus increased transit time outweighs any advantage of ferrying a helicopter. Plus if the helo goes tech enroute all bets are off.

Recently, for the 2015 Abbotsford Air Show, the CF ferried a CH-147F from CFB Petawawa to YXX for the Air Show. The helicopter was flown directly from Petawawa to Abbotsford across Canada, through the Rocky Mountains and into YXX for the show despite the fact that a CC-177 Globemaster was also going to be present at the show. I spoke to the crew that flew the helicopter to the show, and on the last day, the crew were preparing the helicopter for the ferry back to Petawawa. For them, it took roughly 3-4 stops and that was despite the CC-177 and a CC-130J was also scheduled to fly out the following day.

Likewise, for Exercise Maple Resolve back in 2013, the Georgia National Guard flew their CH-47's and UH-60's directly from Georgia to CFB Wainright and back again.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):

Obviously no airlift available... it happens...

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 18): Obviously no airlift available... it happens...

You are also assuming there is suitable handling equipment on the other end to unload a helicopter and reassemble it on the other end. CFB Trenton, which is the hub for air transport operations for the Canadian Forces would very likely have the equipment to take apart a CH-47 for transport. Abbotsford on the other hand probably doesn't. It can take 9 people roughly 18 continuous hours to take apart a CH-47 for transport in a C-17, assuming everything is there.

There is a short video describing the process of disassembly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awXAuSkObps

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):

No I'm assuming anyone airlifting a helo would take any needed equipment with them or otherwise provide for it. Ferrying a helo isn't the best option when airlift, or the means to airlift, isn't available - it's the only option in that case.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19): You are also assuming there is suitable handling equipment on the other end to unload a helicopter and reassemble

You're assuming that your limited examples of flying helicopters to airshows around Canada is somehow relevant to worldwide operations. How are you going to get a Chinook to Afghanistan from Canada? Or even Germany? You put it in a cargo plane, just like it's been done hundreds of times (maybe over a thousand?) in the last decade.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 4): Basically, its easier to fly the helicopter to where you need it to be and take refueling and rest stops along the way.

This is your original statement. It's false, EXCEPT for airshows in Canada.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 13): The A400M has slightly (if any) more height than the C17 but is narrower 4m versus 5.49m.

Thanks for the correction. The picture of CH-53 fitting into the C-17 made it clear something was wrong.

Googling found:



and:



Ref: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/0...2-what-is-so-good-about-it-anyway/

No picture of CH-53.

http://militaryaircraft-airbusds.com/Aircraft/A400M/A400MSpec.aspx says:

Quote: Cargo Hold Width 13 ft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53E_Super_Stallion gives us:

Quote: Width (stub wings): 28 ft 4 in (8.64 m) Width (fuselage): 15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)

Seems the answer is no, based on width.

I have no doubt the CH-53K will be an outstanding aircraft. However, it is not just a plused up E, it is very different, and will need a bit of time to mature. I can tell you from my experience that bringing a very new design up to speed is no fun, especially a low rate build that the military does.

If you want to be mission capable as soon as possible with an awesome, proven machine, the CH-47F is the way to go. The -47F will have a decent MC rate (for a complex helicopter), which in turn will allow a higher usage for a much faster crew and maintainer qualification period. Parts and tech data is out there now. Then they can actually go out and perform missions. Not as much cargo weight, but very respectable. The Chinook has a good airspeed also, no slouch in that department.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 23): I have no doubt the CH-53K will be an outstanding aircraft. However, it is not just a plused up E, it is very different, and will need a bit of time to mature. I can tell you from my experience that bringing a very new design up to speed is no fun, especially a low rate build that the military does.

The Germans are expecting their chosen airframe to come into service in 2022 which is 3-4 years after the Marines expect the CH-53K to IOC. Your right that is soon but it provides a year or two of operational experience with the aircraft, with those lessons applied to new production aircraft which Germany would receive.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 23): If you want to be mission capable as soon as possible with an awesome, proven machine, the CH-47F is the way to go. The -47F will have a decent MC rate (for a complex helicopter), which in turn will allow a higher usage for a much faster crew and maintainer qualification period. Parts and tech data is out there now. Then they can actually go out and perform missions. Not as much cargo weight, but very respectable.

The Chinook is also cheaper and there will be more global operators, increasing spares availability and reducing upgrade costs.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 23): The Chinook has a good airspeed also, no slouch in that department.

Indeed, in AFG the Chinooks would regularly outpace the escorting AH-64s, to the point were the Chinooks would have to slow down else they would arrive at the LZ first with no fire support.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 24): Indeed, in AFG the Chinooks would regularly outpace the escorting AH-64s, to the point were the Chinooks would have to slow down else they would arrive at the LZ first with no fire support.

So true. The OH-58D crawls, AH-64 walks, UH-60 sprints, CH-47s run. I guess it is human nature (at least in the US Army) to haul ass, and make who you are flying with beg you to slow down. In my case flying with OH-58Ds in Iraq ( I was UH-60) it was so slow that it was no wonder every guy from miles around would shoot at you. It was good business for the OH-58D boys as they were too happy to find trouble and get to work. However Chinooks left us in the dust so I guess that's karma for you. The hookers got lots of people and cargo moved over there and were always in huge demand.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 21): You're assuming that your limited examples of flying helicopters to airshows around Canada is somehow relevant to worldwide operations. How are you going to get a Chinook to Afghanistan from Canada? Or even Germany? You put it in a cargo plane, just like it's been done hundreds of times (maybe over a thousand?) in the last decade.

If you have to fly trans-oceanic, then putting it in an cargo aircraft is the only option, other than on a ship. But across the country where you can land and take on fuel? Maybe not, it may be more convenient in the end to ferry the helicopter. It really depends on how far you need to go, ability to disassemble and reassemble the helicopter, and how fast do you need the helicopter there by.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 21): This is your original statement. It's false, EXCEPT for airshows in Canada.

And the Georgia National Guard when they participated in Exercise Maple Resolve, and when new CH-47's are delivered to various units across the US... plenty of other operational examples. Do you want to break down a CH-47 to fit in a C-17 and fly it to Alaska from Pennsylvania, and do it multiple times?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 24): The Chinook is also cheaper and there will be more global operators, increasing spares availability and reducing upgrade costs.

The -47F can haul about as much as the CH-53G*, so if the Germans aren't looking for a huge step up in payload capability and only want a new type to replace the old, I don't see why the -47F shouldn't have a great chance, given all the advantages outlined in this thread.

Cheers
A

*citation needed, I haven't really compared payload/range because, well, I'm being lazy.

Seems like the Sikorsky CH 53K is in the lead:


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/germany-seeks-pricing-for-41-ch-53k-king-stallions-425387/

[Edited 2016-05-17 11:59:25]

FlightGlobal has this bit on potentially reduced performance on the CH-53K. It's less than 1 tonne of payload, but the interesting point that is relevant to our article here is that the CH-53K can sling 1.5× the amount that the CH-47G can.

Sikorsky CH-53K likely to fall short of upper lifting requirement

[Edited 2016-05-19 19:01:16]

On 2 Jun, AvWeek released http://aviationweek.com/defense/boei...ake-pitches-german-heavy-helo-need

It suggests Germany is asking about pricing but is not being very specific on requirements.

The German Air Force (Luftwaffe) would prefer the Boeing CH-47F Extended Range (ER) Chinook to fulfil its Schweren Transporthubschrauber (STH) requirement over the Sikorsky's CH-53K King Stallion, the service's chief disclosed on 11 May.

Speaking at European Air Chiefs Conference (EURAC) in Germany, Lieutenant General Karl Müllner said that he preferred the Chinook over the King Stallion as a future replacement platform for the Luftwaffe's current VFW-Fokker/Sikorsky CH-53G/GS/GA Stallion helicopters.

wrong thread please delete

columba wrote:

The German Air Force (Luftwaffe) would prefer the Boeing CH-47F Extended Range (ER) Chinook to fulfil its Schweren Transporthubschrauber (STH) requirement over the Sikorsky's CH-53K King Stallion, the service's chief disclosed on 11 May.

Speaking at European Air Chiefs Conference (EURAC) in Germany, Lieutenant General Karl Müllner said that he preferred the Chinook over the King Stallion as a future replacement platform for the Luftwaffe's current VFW-Fokker/Sikorsky CH-53G/GS/GA Stallion helicopters.

Did he happen to mention why? With the poor state of the Luftwaffe's procurement & maintenance programs I expect the twin-rotor system to be less suitable, and it has less commonality to current euqipment.
Or would he just be concerned about performance?

mxaxai wrote:

Did he happen to mention why? With the poor state of the Luftwaffe's procurement & maintenance programs I expect the twin-rotor system to be less suitable, and it has less commonality to current equipment.

If that is the case then the CH-47 probably makes more sense than the CH-53. There are already a large number of CH-47F operators in Europe and deep maintenance could easily be contracted out. Compared to the CH-53K which will have just the USMC as the primary operator who will operate it in a different environment.

CH-47F has dominated this market for quite some time. Still a young, fresh model with plenty of life in it. Let's not forget all of the combat time in Afghanistan and Iraq where it has hauled everything plus the kitchen sink in all weather day or night.

CX747 wrote:

CH-47F has dominated this market for quite some time. Still a young, fresh model with plenty of life in it. Let's not forget all of the combat time in Afghanistan and Iraq where it has hauled everything plus the kitchen sink in all weather day or night.

Also, the CH-47F is available in a number of different configurations, from the basic vanilla CH-47F like the US Army has, or the more highly customized versions, such as the RCAF's version, which has external fuel tanks, a EO/IR sensor turret on the nose, a different avionics suite, beefier electrical generation capabilities, and a built in rescue hoist.

The CH 47F is the Jeep version of a transport helicopter and that is what the German Air Force needs.

columba wrote:

The CH 47F is the Jeep version of a transport helicopter and that is what the German Air Force needs.

Nah, the analogy better fits the 2 1/2 ton 6X6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M939_serie ... _6x6_truck

bt

Just looking at the price tag, the CH-53K has no hope in hell in extremely parsimonious Germany !

On a whole the CH-47 program is more widespread with real world data and stories of awesomeness from crews who have been there and gotten the t-shirt. That goes a long way when guys are winding down with a beer at a bar after testing a potential aircraft. The Chinook has truly been "The Man" in the Army's helo fleet in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Germany will benefit from a world wide fleet, ability to train with allied partners and reap the benefits of updates pushed by the US Army.

According to German Media reports high rank officials of the German Air Force are favoring the Chinnok over the CH 53K due to its lower price (60 Chiooks vs 40 CH53Ks). Also in favor of the Chinooks speaks its availability as well as it is the more proven platform. Final decision is made by politicians though..........

It seems even after 50 years the Boeing Vertol tandem configuration is hard to beat, even for the Euro minded germans. Boeing has been working with Eurocopter on a concept based on the Chinook for many years. But programs like the NH90 scared the Euro air forces. Probably an improved CH-47 offers lowest risk / highest value. Like the Lakota proved to be for the US army.

keesje wrote:

It seems even after 50 years the Boeing Vertol tandem configuration is hard to beat, even for the Euro minded germans. Boeing has been working with Eurocopter on a concept based on the Chinook for many years. But programs like the NH90 scared the Euro air forces. Probably an improved CH-47 offers lowest risk / highest value. Like the Lakota proved to be for the US army.

Helicopters are kind of funny things in that they don't really seem to have a lot of upside development wise. Future Vertical Lift may change some of that but so long as you are looking for pure cargo capacity it pretty much comes down to disk size and efficiency of the blades and engine power.

The CH-47 gives you a lot of capability for the cost and it's hard to get a lot more efficient. The 53 is a much more specialized solution that I don't see one needing as a general cargo hauler.

For cheap cargo and troop hauling you can get a lot just upgrading the engines rather than fussing around with new airframes. ITEP will add so much capability to the UH-60 that I feel it will put pressure on FVL to demonstrate its necessity. In my view helicopters to a great extent and fighters to a pretty good extent will be limited by the engines one can produce. More power and more fuel efficiency are far more important than new airframe designs for the most part.

For helicopters in particular I would just keep upgrading the engines and electronics until someone has a new airframe that promises more speed, range and/or payload at a comparable unit cost. I could see the basic helicopters we have now still around and being upgraded 20-30 years from now.

Ozair wrote:

That makes more sense. While I like the Chinook there is something beastly about the CH-53K.

Seen too much Transformer Movies

Ozair wrote:

Perhaps we will see a KC-130 purchase from the Germans similar to the French to overcome the A-400M rotary refuelling issues?

they are hosing the problem:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ll-426543/

WIederling wrote:

Ozair wrote:

Perhaps we will see a KC-130 purchase from the Germans similar to the French to overcome the A-400M rotary refuelling issues?

they are hosing the problem:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ll-426543/

And yet amazingly France and Germany continue with plans for a joint C-130 squadron...

France and Germany's defence ministers have agreed to create a joint air transport squadron that will operate Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules aircraft.

The letter of intent (LoI), signed in Paris on 4 October, will see the Franco-German air transport squadron become operational by 2021. France is set to act as the frame nation of the squadron, which accordingly will be stationed in France.

France currently operates 14 C-130 aircraft (seven C-130H and seven C-130H-30 transporters) and has ordered an additional four aircraft (two C-130Js and two KC-130J tanker/transport). Germany doesn't currently operate the C-130 and so is planning to buy between four and six aircraft as its contribution to the joint squadron.

From the German point of view the primary task for the squadron will be non-combatant evacuation operations, especially for German and European nationals in crisis situations. The C-130Js will also close a German capability gap between the NHIndustries NH90 medium transport helicopter and the larger Airbus A400M transport aircraft.

http://www.janes.com/article/64353/germany-and-france-create-joint-tactical-air-transport-squadron

Wonder why EADS or other European companies never considered launching a design in this class. Its time EU cut the apron strings.

BawliBooch wrote:

Wonder why EADS or other European companies never considered launching a design in this class. Its time EU cut the apron strings.

Yep, I'm sure their A400M experience makes them hungry for lots more pan-European projects...

Ozair wrote:

And yet amazingly France and Germany continue with plans for a joint C-130 squadron...

Not for tankering helos though.

IMU they want a C160 comparable platform for special forces insertion.