Future Heavy Lift - CH47 Chinook Replacement

Unfortunately these days I don't have much faith in the Army to get it right. Though maybe they'll mix things up this time and actually get to the prototype phase before cancelling the program as is their habit for scout helicopters. Usually the heavy lift programs die well before that point.

I know at least one prior effort featured a lot of investigation into large quad tiltrotor type designs. Did the Air Force start to cause a fuss about that? I entirely appreciate the need for a separate Air Force but any major advancement in heavy vertical lift is likely to result in another round of interservice bickering. Once something like this gets too large and plane-like for them they will take issue with it.
 
Last edited:
All I'm expecting out of this is something that looks a lot like a CH-47, but has the engines from an Osprey or the King Stallion and a pair of 4-bladed rotors.
 
I think today is the right time for this. The industry is ready. The sciences is there. The industry ability to tackle with innovation has been refined to a more practical approach back to what it was in their glory times.
 
Last edited:
Scott, the Army did not even want Block 2 CH-47. Block 2 was agreed to for political expediance to get the budget through. "Mechachinook" was proposed by Boeing for the JHL effort. It lost out in the down selection because it did not have the range desired in the proposal request, but it did cost the same.
The Chinook fleet is the youngest of the Army's entire fleet having been one-for-one replaced during the two decade misadventure.
The Infantry and Artillery officers who run the Army have never liked the Cavalry for the cost. They never liked the ego either, but that is a different story.
 
Last edited:
yasotay said:
Scott, the Army did not even want Block 2 CH-47. Block 2 was agreed to for political expediance to get the budget through. "Mechachinook" was proposed by Boeing for the JHL effort. It lost out in the down selection because it did not have the range desired in the proposal request, but it did cost the same.
The Chinook fleet is the youngest of the Army's entire fleet having been one-for-one replaced during the two decade misadventure.
The Infantry and Artillery officers who run the Army have never liked the Cavalry for the cost. They never liked the ego either, but that is a different story.
Click to expand...
What about swapping with a CH-53K? Too $$$?
 
sferrin said:
What about swapping with a CH-53K? Too $$$?
Click to expand...
The cost is certainly a show stopper, and not just the purchase price. The maintenance cost are also greater than any platform the U.S. Army has in inventory. The other issue that it's range is not significantly greater than that of the Chinook, without having access to air refueling.
 
yasotay said:
Scott, the Army did not even want Block 2 CH-47. Block 2 was agreed to for political expediance to get the budget through. "Mechachinook" was proposed by Boeing for the JHL effort. It lost out in the down selection because it did not have the range desired in the proposal request, but it did cost the same.
Click to expand...
Yes.

I just don't see a V-44 or whatever you want to call a quadrotor Osprey meeting that $100mil/airframe flyaway cost marker.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes.

I just don't see a V-44 or whatever you want to call a quadrotor Osprey meeting that $100mil/airframe flyaway cost marker.
Click to expand...
There is currently, to my knowledge, not anyone proposing a two thirds sized C-130 VTOL platform for less than $100M. Even Abe Karem with all his progressive industrial methods did not prognosticate a "cheaper" solution. Thus, my original post of my concept design.
 
yasotay said:
There is currently, to my knowledge, not anyone proposing a two thirds sized C-130 VTOL platform for less than $100M. Even Abe Karem with all his progressive industrial methods did not prognosticate a "cheaper" solution. Thus, my original post of my concept design.
Click to expand...
Which is why I think the Army is going to be stuck with "King Chinook", with 4 bladed rotors and the engines out of the King Stallion. Because there's no way to get the range they want for the price. They'll get the lift they want but not the range.
 
They should look at their previous projects in the past, and apply lessons learnt from the years of experience they've had with the Chinook.
The XCH-62 was to have 3 × Allison T701-AD-700 engines, and if Lockheed can shove in a third engine into the Stallion, I'm sure Boeing can add in three into a Super Chinook.
The most powerful western turboprop today is the Europrop TP400, and it's only a matter of engineering to turn that into a turboshaft. This all may exceed the $100M mark though.
...and the fact Boeing is involved.
 

Attachments

  • 227 & 237.JPG
    227 & 237.JPG
    75.3 KB · Views: 19

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom