Why no Navalized Chinook?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

JFKY 3/5/2008 10:13:59 AM

It was/is called the CH-46. Plus inter-service rivalry, no doubt, plus the small size of most ship landing pads, especially when the Ch-47 came on-line. In short, the CH-47 was too big and too Army for most navies....the Ch-46 was a smaller version of the CH-47 and has seen extensive service.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/6/2008 8:46:44 AM

The Ch-46 is only a, maybe, 50% more capable lifter than a late model H-60. The CH-47, OTOH, is really closer to the CH-53.

What ships are there where a CH-46 can operate but a CH-47 can't? Length and perhaps height seem to be the biggest potential problems. Rotors turning, the CH-47 is need around 18 ft more length and 10 ft more width than a Sea Knight. If folded, the Ch-47 has only around 7 feet longer and has not much (if any) wider deck spot.

So it would seem that you could carry almost as many Chinooks on an LHD/A as Sea Knights, but the Chinooks are roughly twice as capable.

Quote Reply

Softwar 3/6/2008 9:04:54 AM

There is more to operating on a ship than folding rotors. The CH-47 has never tried to make the sea borne requirements - and although its still Boeing Vertol - the makers had two different sets of specs to work from - including weight and endurance.

The only time I know of CH-47s being used off the deck was the Atlantic Conveyor - which never managed to land the choppers due to an Argentine Exocet. If you want - view the photos prior to the attack and you will see that the choppers were heavily taped and covered in plastic wrap to protect from the salt spray.

The 18+ feet length and 10 ft. width means a lot on a cramped assault carrier deck - not counting the extra weight. The CH-47 and the V-22 are closer in size but speed and range were why the Marines picked the V-22.

Quote Reply

benellim4 3/6/2008 9:24:32 AM

I think we're forgetting that the CH-46 can also land and operate from the decks of surface combatants. Given the fit of the -46, I doubt the -47 has the same capability.

FWIW, the V-22 can't either. That's why the USN is shifting from the -46 to the -60 for logistics.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty 3/6/2008 1:16:31 PM

Apparently CH-47s HC.2s are regularly used off of HMS Ocean and Invincible class carriers in British service.

I realize why the Marines chose the V-22, though the CH-47 is a far better heavy lifter. My question is was the Chinook ever in the running?

Quote Reply

phrogdriver 3/7/2008 10:33:11 PM

The Chinook is heavy lift. The latest ones will beat a CH-53E in lift, depending on configurations and environment.

I don't think the USMC has ever seriously considered CH-47s for either the heavy or medium(?!?) lift role.

The Chinook would also need droop stops for its rotors as well in order to deal with seagoing winds and ship rolling/pitching at sea. Without them a tandem-rotor helo is bound to get a "tunnel strike" (hit the middle of the aircraft) when the blades droop at low rpm when starting/stopping. It would need a rotor brake for the same reason. I don't know if the new ones have them, but the older ones didn't, and you need that at sea, as well.

Quote Reply