T408 equipped CH-47 Chinook being preped for flight test

Given the debacle that is the USMC King Stallion (100 million plus per) Boeing is persuing a CH-47 equipped witht he Stallions new T408 turbines.

Housed is square nacelles the T408 produce 2500 shp more EACH than the existing T55-GA-714A currently being used on the F model.

At present the King stallion can lift 27000 pounds and the CH-47F 21000. An additional 5000 shp should close that gap quite a alot. If that is the case the whole procurement by the USMC might be in trouble espeically since the 47F is going for about 40 million versus 100-120 million or the cost of a B model F-35

www.thedrive.com...

a reply to: FredT

can the chinook be " rotor upgrade " ???

you cannot increase rotor diameter - for several reasons

and rotor tip velocity - is one of the big " walls " in rotor craft

but - if you have such a significant power increase

can blades with a more agressive profile be retro fitted ???

yes - i understand that the drive train has a upper torque limit

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yes, to a degree. You might run into problems if you try to go too aggressive, but they could put lighter blades, or different pitch blades.

a reply to: FredT Its all about deck space- I believe that the tail boom folds on the 53- you cant fold up a 47.

a reply to: GD

That folding capability cost us seven people and an airframe.

a reply to: Zaphod58 The E version that the Corps flew when I was in had a pretty bad rep as a widowmaker- as did the harrier and countless other aircraft that grew into their mission, and proved reliable in the long run. The space issue is real- there is only so much of it on a LHA or LHD. The trade off of less cargo capability for more deck space is going to be a no go every single time. Even as the Corps "disburses" onto more platforms, space will still be an issue. The America class isn't going anywhere, and the primary mission will be to move Marines. As there is no well deck on the first two units- the 53k will be invaluable.

a reply to: GD

We had the HH-53 as part of the 6594th Test Group. They'd catch film canisters coming back from orbit. No matter which version you're talking about they're pigs. Decent birds, but maintenance intensive as hell.

a reply to: Zaphod58 No doubt, they are maintenance intensive.

a reply to: GD

I get the deck space But:

How many 100 million dollar air frames does the USMC need? Thier aviation budget is getting out fo hand for a amphibious assault mission that does not really exist anymore

a reply to: FredT It does still exist. The Corps is the nations force in readiness. The Army can deploy some Rangers in a tripwire capacity in short order, but they are not self reliant. An MEU (SOC) comes with everything they need to complete the mission. Because they are usually forward deployed to troublesome areas, they are already in place when the called upon.

How many? 200- and the cost will drop to 89 million per unit.

a reply to: FredT Plus, I forgot to mention all those manmade Chinese islands...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Such a mess of a design, and sort of inexcusable considering that the Soviets more or less matched the capabilities perfectly with the Mi-6 and Mi-26, which maintenance-wise are like flying tractors. I'm guessing you'd probably have a bit of trouble trying to fit an Mi-26 into an LHA hangar deck, though.

It seems like the problem is that the stallions needed to be flying work trucks, but due to all of their size, etc constraints, they ended up being sports cars with pickup beds; theoretically capable as hell, when they work, but equally temperamental and prone to catastrophic mechanical failures due to how highly stressed the design was.

In hindsight, the USN/USMC probably should have kept upgrading the Sea Knight to get the range where they wanted it to be and simply bought half again as many of them. Frank Piasecki must be laughing from beyond the grave at this latest development.