03 May 2025, 00:14 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: USMC CH-53, F-35 & C-130  Posted: 05 May 2024, 17:31 |
|
 |
|
|
Joined: 01/04/17
Posts: 109
Post Likes: +35
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Attachment: PchartMedium.jpeg Aircraft in the pic is a CH-53K not CH-53E so I would expect better performance numbers. Just sayin...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: USMC CH-53, F-35 & C-130 Posted: 05 May 2024, 17:44 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 08/26/15
Posts: 9917
Post Likes: +9804
Company: airlines (*CRJ,A320)
Location: Florida panhandle
Aircraft: Travel Air,T-6B,etc*
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Would that external load impact the range that much? According to the internet, a CH-53 without external fuel pods has a range of 540nm. I’m going to take a wild guess that there was limited practical decision making beyond a photo op and “because we can”. There’s also a statement of 60 and 70 year old brute force technology sling-loading state-of-the-art.
Occasionally there is some theater-level problem that only a 53 with a slung load can solve, namely some priority cargo that's too big and/or heavy to fit inside a cargo aircraft and if the destination is an "air capable ship" (i.e. not an aircraft carrier) that's out of helicopter range of a friendly runway.
Occasionally or less, maybe rarely is a better word. "Because we can" is nice to have in your back pocket, "just in case."
The Navy V-22 can sling an F-35 engine and carry it a fair distance (can't remember how far). This is a similar idea but with the brute strength of the 53, and I suspect longer legs than a V-22 with any given slung load.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: USMC CH-53, F-35 & C-130 Posted: 09 May 2024, 23:14 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/16
Posts: 3
Post Likes: +2
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Occasionally there is some theater-level problem that only a 53 with a slung load can solve, namely some priority cargo that's too big and/or heavy to fit inside a cargo aircraft and if the destination is an "air capable ship" (i.e. not an aircraft carrier) that's out of helicopter range of a friendly runway. The 53 is the tool of choice for TRAP missions in the Marine Corps. The ability to sling an F-35 over a significant distance requiring refueling is not just "nice to have," it's a key requirement of the mission. The alternative is dropping a bomb on it to destroy the classified components or using bodies on the ground to accomplish the same. If you gotta fly the bodies in anyway, might as well just grab and go.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
