Talk:Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion/Archive 1

CH-53/CH-53E
The naming situation is pretty complicated here. One approach would be to put everything under a single article Sikorsky S-65 and have the various versions in sections; however, nobody actually uses "S-65", and this is confusing for the stats table. Since the Sea Stallion and Super Stallion are rather different, I suggest handling this with two articles CH-53 Sea Stallion and CH-53E Super Stallion and arranging all the redirs appropriately, with original S-65 airframe/design info/links going to the "Sea Stallion" version, since that's more of a historical than current interest. The two articles exist now, but I'll wait to tinker with redirs and content until other people have a chance to weigh in. Stan 19:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think moving all this to the CH-53 page would be the best thing, and include a large section on this helicopter, like with F/A-18 Hornet, but keep this page.--The1exile 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the way it's done over on the Hornet page is that there's a subsection on the Super Hornet that points to the main article. --Mmx1 17:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in this article make it have a major section which points to this article. Any objection? I would do it but I have a load of course work about 16000 words long to do. --The1exile 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No time to do it now but the CH-53 info needs to be moved to the CH-53 Sea stallion page - this page talks about service in Vietnam and the 1970's but the E version didn't enter service until 1981. --Mmx1 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge CH-53K with this article
The CH-53K article currently has very little info on the page. In addition, the article was created with no discussion on this or the CH-53 Sea Stallion page. As the K is basically an upgrade of the CH-53E, I believe it would be better to keep the information here.

What to name this article should also be considered. Options: -- BillCJ 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC) No contest. Done. Not renamed. - BillCJ 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) CH-53E Super Stallion - No change at this time. CH-53K has not been built yet.
 * 2) CH-53 Super Stallion - Similar to, but still different than, the CH-53 Sea Stallion. The latter article covers Models A-D, and F-G.
 * 3) CH-53E/K Super Stallion - More specific, but a bit non-standard. However, this is the pattern for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which also includes the EA-18G Growler. This is my preference.


 * The K model is far more than an upgrade. It is essentially a new airframe with mostly the same physical footprint, though it is noticably wider. While not as significantly different as the Super Hornet is from the Hornet, it is really not the same aircraft. I think we will in time need to split to off again. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but as the content stands now, it's fine here. I agree it will need it's own article eventually, assuming it survives Congressional budget cuts in the next few years. - BillCJ 17:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
Recently someone renamed this article to MH-53E Sea Dragon, stating that this is what this aircraft is most commonly known as. I have switched it back as I disagree with that presumption. My reasons for this are as follows: The CH-53E Super Stallion has not only been around longer than the Sea Dragon (1981 vs 1987, the Sea Dragon being based upon the original Super Stallion airframe), there were also four times as many Super Stallions produced than there were Sea Dragons (nearly 200 Super Stallions as opposed to just over 40 Sea Dragons). There are more squadrons flying the Super Stallion (10 Marine Corps) vs the Sea Dragon (3 Navy). There are six CH-53 aircraft variants that bear the Stallion name (CH-53D, RH-53D, VH-53D, VH-53E, CH-53E and CH-53K) vs only one variant bearing the Dragon name (MH-53E). Finally, using the anectdotal "google search" litmus test, a search of google for CH-53E Super Stallion yields 46,800 hits. A search for MH-53E Sea Dragon yields only 14,800. Yahoo is even worse, showing over 51,000 hits for CH-53E Super Stallion, yet only 2540 hits for MH-53E Sea Dragon. Hebron 11:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree that this page does not need to be titled for the MH-53E. My suggestion would be that the MH needs to be separated into either a subsection in this article or its own article altogether. Though technically a variant of the CH-53E, the MH is an unique aircraft with differing systems and wholly different missions. Either option would require a substantial effort, as references are mixed throughout the article. I'd be willing to undertake if others agree. --Awatts30 01:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)--


 * We don't usually separate the variant within one article, and cover the differences in the Variants section. (The CH-53K notwithstanding, but that is planned to have it's own page as more info becomes availabe.) As to splitting off the MH-53E, I don't know that that is necessary either. Remember, the USN used to operate CH-53Es in the transport role, then let them go (presumably to the Marines), and now use the MH-53Es in that role. I assume this is because they were relatively unsed in their intended role, at least in terms of flight hours,a nd so were available. However, you're welcome to run a split poll to gage consensus for a move if you like. I'm really neutral on this, but I wouldn't mind doing the mechanics of the split if it's approved. - BillCJ 01:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are huge differences between the CH-53E and MH-53E. There is no reason why they should be in the same article.
 * - The CH is a Marine helo and is widely used in the Marines (with there currently being around 100 CH's in service today).
 * - The MH is a Navy helo and is more of a novelty. There are only currently 15 MH's in service today.
 * - The missions of each helo are way different. CH's are very healily involved in both OEF and OIF and have clearly put their own footprint on both operations.


 * Not to mention that the people looking up these articles are most likely Marines or Sailors that used to work on each helo and would be extremely offended at the merging of these articles (as am I) :)


 * On the subject of the CH-53K, this should be mentioned in the CH-53E article as a proposed replacement, and then expanded on in a stub article. Chexmix53 (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The CH-53E and MH-53E articles were never merged as there never was a separate MH-53E article. The -53Es are largely the same helicopter with different missions/roles.  Not much different from newer, improved variants of other aircraft.  Not enough justification for separate articles.  Now an article on the CH-53K will be set to go when they put out some preliminary specs.  Current data mostly compares to CH-53E but no official dimensions. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. The MH and CH are different helicopters.  Just look at the sections of this article; Development (this helo was developed years before the MH), Background (thus having a longer background), Operational History (significantly different due to the fact they are used for different missions), Operators, Specifications (the majority are different), and Armament.  The majority of this article differs between CH and MH.  I'm okay with holding off on the separate Kilo article until more information is available, but the MH should have it's own article. Chexmix53 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Payload capacity
Can someone expalain why the MH-53E can carry a "16-ton payload" while the CH-53E can only carry "carry underslung loads up to 16,330 kg" (which is 36,000lbs or 13 tons)? Are they not the same airframe, rotors, and engines? --ProdigySportsman 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just a guess, but could the 16-ton figure have been actual;ly been metric tonnes? - BillCJ 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I believe the CH-53E has a higher payload capacity than the MH-53E. The CH-53E can theoretically carry a 36,000 lbs load which is 18 short tons.  The MH-53E's capacity is only 16 short tons.  The difference is in a large part due to the different configuration of the MH-53, namely in that instead of auxillary fuel tanks mounted to its fuel sponsons, it has enlarged fuel sponsons.  These sponsons give the MH an increase of fuel capacity of nearly 923 gallons, or nearly 6276 lbs (using JP-5 fuel).  An increase in fuel capacity will result in a decrease in overall payload capacity.  This only partially explains the diffence.  Other places where weight may be either saved or added are on sound-proofing, avionics, fuel probes, seats, crew etc.  Hope this answers your questions. Hebron 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Airframes and rotors are the same, but the MH model has newer and more powerful engines. Both models' payloads are limited by their fuel loadout, i.e., filling to max capacity will decrease the amount of stuff you can carry. --Awatts30 01:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)--

This machine warps time?
"CH-53E helicopters from the 24th MAU provided critical combat support during this operation, with the CH-53E averaging over 1000 accident free flight hours, per month, per aircraft."

Pretty slick trick, considering that there are only 744 hours in the longest months. I wonder if that was in the original military specification?


 * Well, the whole section is unsourced, so we can't double check the figures or the context. I'm not sure how long the fact tags have been there, but it's been more than a week anyway. The best thing to do would be to remove everything from the section that can't be verified. - I'll give it a few more days, then toss all of it. - BillCJ 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd expect something more like 'fewest accidents per 1000 flight hrs..'. Real hard to say with the source, as Bill wrote. -Fnlayson 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How many aircraft are there? GlobalSecurity.org lists that there are four. An average of 250 hours/month is unbelievable for only four airframes. Considering that the previous figure of 744 hours in the month, and the aircrews are only available for 1/2 of that time (322 hours) and the amount of maintenance required for each flight hour, mean that it would take more hours than are available in the month to continue to maintain the helicopter for every hour it flies. More than likely, this figure is for all of the MEU's aircraft or an extra zero was inadvertently added to the number (100 vs. 1000). 100 accident-free flight hours per month, per aircraft is actually reasonable to expect. --Born2flie 08:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The figure, which I believe is deleted now, but to end the discussion, when you refer to "1000 accident free flight hours", it refers to "flight hours" which is the time a plane flies. This figure would refer to the fact that in the unit (which is usually around 4 birds for a det or 20 birds for a squadron) the planes flew over 1000 flight hours a month without incident, which is impressive considering this reference sounds like it was referring to a det attached to the 24th MAU.  Kudos though to the genius with the calculator that figured out there are only 744 hours in a long month.  Chexmix53 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Armament
Most or all of the H-53s have machine guns on the side behind the cockpit area. I read somewhere the mine sweeping variants (VH-53A/D & MH-53E) have 2 machine guns for detonating mines. If that's correct, are they somewhere in the rear of the helicopter for shooting behind? I glossed over this in what I added to the article. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These are not your garden variety machine guns, they are 50 cals behind the cockpit in the crew door and window. They have also outfitted many of the CH-53s to have a rear tail gun mount that has a 50 cal on the back ramp as well.  The mine sweeping tool (from what I know) is a separate boat or whatever that is towed behind the 53 through the water (see the picture on the CH-53E).  It's pretty hard to detect mines from a helo with a machine gun :P  Chexmix53 (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note detonating, does not mean detecting. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's even stranger. What is the point at shooting blindly into the desert with a machine gun from a helicopter to detonate mines?Chexmix53 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)



For both variants armament Ch-53e and Mh-53e is as follows: 2x XM-218 machine guns, 1 mounted in the Personnel door on starboard side, and 1 mounted in the gunners window (forward most emergency escape hatch). Also on the ramp on the ch-53e there is provisions for 1 pintle mounted Gau-21 machine gun, Approx 8 mh's have the gau mounts as they were formally owned and operated by HC-4. Both the XM-218 and Gau-21 are .50 Caliber weapons. The xm-218 has a rate of fire of 650-850 rounds per minute and fires from a closed bolt using 100 round cans. The Gau-21 has a rate of fire of 925-1100 rounds per minute and fires from an open bolt using a 300 round can. Both weapons are deriatives of the M-2 Browning. The Gau-21 is made by FN Herstal, Belguim. Aircraft are also have provisions for AAR-47/ALE-39/APR-39 threat warning system. Detects missiles and harmful Lasers and for lasers alerts the crew and for missiles sounds an audible tone over cabin ICS and alerts from which direction the missile is coming and will automatically dispense chaff/flare with appropriate configuration. Aircraft has provisions for up to 60 flares. Almost all Ch-53E and select Mh-53E's (HC-4 Aircraft) have provisions and "kits" for floor and Engine nacelle armour. The MH-53E uses Mine sweeping gear to clear sea mines. Not Land Mines. The gear is towed from provisions and winches mounted on pallets in the cabin. The aircraft can carry a .50 cal (xm-218) for floating mine destruction. After the aircraft cuts a mine basic wwII style mine suspended from a chain it can shoot the mine with the machine gun to attempt to blow it up. However usually Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams come and blow it up using demolitions charges. As far as the differences in the actual airframe goes... They're pretty much identical. Except for the Sponsons and the fuel tanks inside of the sponsons. The MH can carry more fuel. The MH also has an additional hydraulic system to run its minesweeping gear. The MH also has uprated engines. GE-64-419s. The CH uses GE-64-416a's. The maximum gross take off weight for both models is 69,750lbs. Thats the combined weight of the aircraft, crew, fuel, and payload cannot exceed 69,750lbs. CH's have a FLIR ball and updated glass cockpits. The CH also has the drop tanks. In an emergency the CH can drop its tanks to reduce its weight and attempt a fly away. The MH doesn't have this capability so its engines are uprated for emergency power only. The MH cannot lift more. For External Cargo lift both aircraft when using a "single point" suspension sling can lift up to 25,000lbs, the hook is rated to 36,000lbs but the aircraft is limited to 25k. The CH is also provisioned for "dual pointing" which used 2 hooks rated to 20,000lbs each but for dual point the aircraft is limited to 36,000lbs. So technically the CH can external cargo lift more only when using the 2 hook system Posted by -ME and no i will not sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.54.111 (talk • contribs)

Accidents section
Most of the text here originally appeared to be copied from sources I found and added. I have reworded things a fair bit. I could use other set(s) of eyes to look over the text to make sure it is not "close paraphrasing". Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)