Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Chinooks To the Rescue

CSAR-X-2_375x300.jpgBoeing's HH-47 Chinook has won the $10-billion CSAR-X contest to provide 141 Combat Search and Rescue choppers to the Air Force, beating out the Lockheed Martin US.101 and the Sikorsky H-92. The new birds will replace around 100 decrepit Sikorsky HH-60G Pavehawks that are too small, too flimsy and underpowered. As Boeing puts it in a press release,

The tandem rotor, heavy-lift, high-altitude HH-47 is based on the CH/MH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, with performance capabilities that have been widely demonstrated in the ongoing global war on terrorism and in numerous U.S. and international humanitarian relief operations.

Damn straight. When the Pavehawk was procured, C-SAR was all about nabbing downed fighter pilots from Soviet-held Germany -- a short-range mission in a cool climate requiring minimal lifting capability. These days C-SAR is about much more: reinforcing outnumbered ground troops on some distant mountaintop, spiriting noncombatants away from a remote warzone and plucking hurricane survivors off rooftops. That takes speed, range and powerful engines, things the Chinook has in spades.

The award comes hot on the heels of a search-and-rescue shuffle that saw the Pavehawks and their crews get bumped from the regular Air Force to Special Operations Command then back. It was SOC that favored the HH-47, and this preference apparently stuck despite the reshuffle.

The decision means that the 40-year-old Chinook design will remain in production until around 2020 at least. In addition to the new Air Force models, the Army is buying 400 new CH-47Fs and Special Forces MH-47Gs ... and international customers are starting to line up too.

--David Axe

Latest Comments

Murc,

LZ is "Landing Zone" - basically any area a helo can land in.

Ralph,

The difference is not a couple of feet in rotor diameter. With rotors turning, the 47 is over 25 feet longer than the 101. Width is about the same, but obviously with two main rotors the 47 needs a lot more square footage, to say nothing of a pilot's ability to keep the rear rotor clear in a tight LZ since he can't see it.

Posted by: Patrick at November 13, 2006 12:30 AM


Ralph, you seem pretty well informed on the Chinooks...so I gotta a question for ya: If one engine craps out, does one of the turbines stop spinning...or is it like the V-22 in which there is a shaft that connects the two engines so if one goes out, the other engine can safly give power to both props.(?)

also...what does LZ mean?

Posted by: Murc at November 12, 2006 3:06 AM


Bill, I suppose you are not aware but the HH-47 has the least downwash of the 3 entrants (simple physics really) the larger mass is distriibuted over an even larger surface area of the blades. The USAF measured the downwash very carefully at the Nellis demos of all 3 aircraft. The 47 has the lowest by 20-30%.

This aircraft is already faster than the 101 or the 92 without a new blade that the other 2 would have to develop and qualify. WE are already at 150 knots and going to 170 in Block 10 with a new blade that has chance at being done in a reasonable amount of time.

We will have a Ballistic Warning System on board in Block 10 and armour that is equal to the USASF requirements.

Oh by the way you don't drop like a rock if 1 engine goes out, so stop spouting misinformation.

The footprint of this aircraft is not that much bigger than the other two. The difference is a coupel of feet in rotor diameter, so that crap about not fittining into LZs is untrue as well.

Posted by: Ralph at November 11, 2006 9:40 PM


Perhaps yes, 141 choppers are needed, if you consider the entire globe, and the fact that you need a few SAR choppers perhaps stationed on each USAF foreign base overseas. Think about the vast, wastelands of Central Asia that need to be covered from Kazakhstan and Afghanistan.

Plus, take combat attrition and damage into account.

Posted by: Benjamin Fan at November 11, 2006 3:28 PM


Does the USAF really truly need 141 combat search and rescue helicopters..?

Posted by: JH at November 11, 2006 2:59 AM


» View All 14 Comments

» Post a Comment