Boeing Delivers First Production F-Model Chinook

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
(Source: Boeing Co.; issued July 22, 2004)


ST. LOUIS --- The Boeing Company has delivered the first production CH-47F Chinook helicopter two months ahead of schedule, marking the beginning of the U.S. Army’s Chinook modernization program.

The aircraft, the first of seven Lot 1 deliveries, will be used initially for flight demonstrations. The remaining six aircraft in Lot 1, all MH-47G Special Operations Chinooks, will be delivered by March 2005. To ensure that the U.S. Army Special Operations forces can meet high priority operational needs, Boeing will next remanufacture approximately 30 more G-model Chinooks before the next CH-47F is delivered in 2006. Boeing will deliver more than 300 F-model Chinooks to the U.S. Army between 2006 and program completion.

“This delivery continues Boeing’s long history of producing and modernizing this vital aircraft for Army service and begins what is expected to be nearly 15 more years of business with our U.S. Army customer,†said Pat Shanahan, vice president and general manager, Boeing Rotorcraft Systems. “The Chinook is the world’s most advanced heavy-lift helicopter, and the Army’s commitment to the aircraft is a testament to its proven technology, productive history and continued relevance to the Army’s future.â€

Boeing delivered the first of two F-model engineering and manufacturing development prototypes in May 2002. Like the prototypes, the first production CH-47F not only will extend the service of the fleet, but features numerous upgrades over its predecessors, including reduced vibration, improved avionics and more powerful engines to help improve mission performance and reduce operation and maintenance costs. The aircraft’s improved cockpit design offers improved situational awareness to support interoperability requirements.

Boeing builds the Chinook in Philadelphia, where employees use state-of-the-art lean manufacturing and engineering methods to generate efficiencies and cost savings in all stages of development and production. Boeing’s longest running continuous production program, the Chinook first entered service with the U.S. Army in 1962, is in service with 20 allied nations and in use in countless military, civilian and humanitarian missions around the world every day. The U.S. Army will upgrade more than 300 D-model Chinooks to the fully modernized F-model configuration, extending the Chinook’s service life through at least 2030.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $27 billion business that provides systems solutions to its global military, government and commercial customers. It is a leading provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities (or systems); the world’s largest military aircraft manufacturer; the world’s largest satellite manufacturer and a leading provider of space-based communications; the primary systems integrator for U.S. missile defense; NASA’s largest contractor; and a global leader in launch services.


OSINT alert. No link provided
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Pretty interesting stuff. The C models were in use from Vietnam all the way into the mid 90's (some National Guard units). The D model was a solid upgrade, I'm surprised they are going farther so soon. Maybe they will get the C-Box to stop leaking tranny fluid finally!
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
Yes Chinook has been the work horse for the U.S army since early 1970's. But I think it's time to retire them instead of upgrading. Pavehawk Helicopter can do the job just as well and has newer avionics.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
No model Blackhawk can lift as much as Chinook or carry as much cargo (or troops) as far. In addition Blackhawks can't match the Chinook's high altitude performance either. Blackhawks are good, but not designed to match the Chinook. Australia is planning on upgrading it's Chinooks by 2008/9 or so as well under Air 9000 and possibly acquire more. I'm guessing they will be looking very closely at the new F model at present...
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
The Pavehawk is virtually limited to lifting with a sling, it's internal load is nowhere near required to shift heavier kit into an area. Pavehawks can't do drive on/drive offs.

If you need to shift light wheeled, tracked vehicles, be able to get a forklift inside with a std pallet etc then the Chinook is the only US helo capable of doing it. (plus it can still do a sling shift as well.
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
Oh crap, I meant the Newest Super Stallion serving with the U.S marine corps. Sorry I got the names confused.

The CH-53X Super Stallion is more advanced than any other models of heavy transport chopper in the world(Claimed by manufacturer).It is faster, more manoevureble, and more fuel efficient than Chinook. It can be scrambled in under 4 minutes and load into a C-5 transport. A pretty logical choice to replace the Chinooks.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I was under the impression the CH-53 was just about to be retired from the Marine Corps and that it had no more than a few years of service left? Gremlin, can you help out on this?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Fair enough. I doubt the Chinook will be cancelled though. It has proven very effective and more popular than the CH-53 though, with numerous international customers including UK, Australia, Japan, Egypt, Israel and others I'm more than likely not even aware of...
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The CH-53 is definately a bigger bird. The Air Force is/has getting rid of most of them because they simpy haven't got a mission for them (it's overkill for SAR). The Navy and Marines will continue to use them for some time. Is the 53 more maneuverable than the 47? Not a chance. As a rule the larger the aircraft the less maneuverable it will be, it's just a matter of physics.

One must consider mission needs when selecting an aircraft. The US Army for example has no mission need for the CH-53, and that is but one reason they don't have them in their inventory. Believe it or not the actual rotor diameter of a helicopter becomes a critical factor when they are employed by an army that utilizes helicopters as a maneuvering element. The CH-47 can land in alot smaller LZ's than the gigantic CH-53 can, and that's critically important. You don't want your ground units (especially straight leg infantry) to have to walk miles and miles to their desired destination, fatigue has a habit of reducing combat effectiveness on an expotential scale. So, it is critical during the mission planning stages to select LZ's that are as close as practical to the destination of your cargo. When your rotor diameter is as big as it is on the CH-53, finding LZ's in a jungle or woodland setting can become very very challenging and selections become very limited.

None of the UH-60 family have the capability of carrying any sort of vehicles internally as GF has pointed out. In addition, their lift capability is half or less as that of the CH-47. UH-60's are typically used to haul troops rigth to or forward of the FEBA, resupply them with beans and bullest, and occasionally sling load larger loads (HUMVE's, fuel blivets, etc.) while the CH-47's are used to bring large numbers of troops to forward areas (not LZ's), large cargo items and of course downed aircraft recovery. In other words, they are more of a volume feeder of men and material to deployment area's.
 

Pathfinder-X

Tribal Warlord
Verified Defense Pro
Gremlin29 said:
The CH-53 is definately a bigger bird. The Air Force is/has getting rid of most of them because they simpy haven't got a mission for them (it's overkill for SAR). The Navy and Marines will continue to use them for some time. Is the 53 more maneuverable than the 47? Not a chance. As a rule the larger the aircraft the less maneuverable it will be, it's just a matter of physics.

One must consider mission needs when selecting an aircraft. The US Army for example has no mission need for the CH-53, and that is but one reason they don't have them in their inventory. Believe it or not the actual rotor diameter of a helicopter becomes a critical factor when they are employed by an army that utilizes helicopters as a maneuvering element. The CH-47 can land in alot smaller LZ's than the gigantic CH-53 can, and that's critically important. You don't want your ground units (especially straight leg infantry) to have to walk miles and miles to their desired destination, fatigue has a habit of reducing combat effectiveness on an expotential scale. So, it is critical during the mission planning stages to select LZ's that are as close as practical to the destination of your cargo. When your rotor diameter is as big as it is on the CH-53, finding LZ's in a jungle or woodland setting can become very very challenging and selections become very limited.

None of the UH-60 family have the capability of carrying any sort of vehicles internally as GF has pointed out. In addition, their lift capability is half or less as that of the CH-47. UH-60's are typically used to haul troops rigth to or forward of the FEBA, resupply them with beans and bullest, and occasionally sling load larger loads (HUMVE's, fuel blivets, etc.) while the CH-47's are used to bring large numbers of troops to forward areas (not LZ's), large cargo items and of course downed aircraft recovery. In other words, they are more of a volume feeder of men and material to deployment area's.
True, older models of CH-53 is not as manoevurable as Chinook, but the manufacturer of CH-53X claims the chopper is the most advanced heavy support heli in the world. Also CH-53 is more heavily armoured than Chinook, its motor blade can take several hits from 7.62mm NATO rounds without a problem. There for it is more survivable than Chinook under fire. And Helos don't neccessary have to land to deliver its troops, they could always fast rope. Of course, if you are delivering supplies then that's another story.
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I don't doubt their claim as to it's being the most advanced, but that will not make it more maneuverable. It's ability to absorb small arms fire should exceed the CH-47's as it is bigger and capable of being more heavily armored, but it is also going to draw more fire due to it's ponderous size so survivability in the same combat conditions is questionable in my opinion. In fact, the CH-53 is so expensive they usually don't like to have them very near the FEBA. As far as air assaults are concerened, setting down on the ground is manifestly more favorable than fast rope operations for a host of reasons. In fact, aside from the 101st Air Assault division and of course the 75th Ranger Regiment I can't think of a standard "organization" that has enough troops qualified to fast rope in the first place. Of course my reasoning is based on the US Army's practice of heliborne operations, the scope of which far exceeds that found elsewhere in the world.
 
Top