Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boeing's CH-47F Chinook helicopter fielded

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Boeing's CH-47F Chinook helicopter fielded

    Aug 16, 2007 Boeing has announced that its new CH-47F Chinook helicopter has been certified combat-ready by the U.S. Army and fielded to the first operational unit. Since being first unveiled in mid 2006, the new Chinook has successfully completed 60 rigorous flight test hours including simulated mission scenarios.

    The latest addition to the Army's aviation fleet features a newly designed, modernized airframe, a Rockwell Collins Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) cockpit and a BAE Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS).

    CAAS greatly improves air crew situational awareness and DAFCS provides dramatically improved flight control capabilities through features such as "hover hold," "altitude hold" and "beep down" that improve performance and safety in brownout situations, as well as the entire flight envelope.

    Advanced avionics also incorporate improved situational awareness for flight crews with an advanced digital map display and a data transfer system that allows storing of pre-flight and mission data. Improved survivability features include Common Missile Warning and Improved Countermeasure Dispenser Systems. The entire suite of improved cockpit capabilities will apply to other H-47 models.

    Powered by two 4,868-horsepower Honeywell engines, the new CH-47F can reach speeds greater than 175 mph and transport more than 21,000 pounds. The CH-47F, with the Robertson Aviation Extended Range Fuel System, has a mission radius of more than 400 nautical miles.

    "The CH-47F is a next-generation aircraft that provides greater safety, mission management and situational awareness for our soldiers," said Jack Dougherty, director, Boeing H-47 Programs. "This represents a milestone in Army aviation."
    http://www.gizmag.com/go/7807/
    Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

  • #2
    While I applaud the modernization of a Helicopter I have long admired, is this the best use of our money? Is the state of the art of design on the aircraft so perfect a better design can't be found? If we can keep using designs from the 40s and 50s (B-52s and CH-47) why can't they bring back the A-1D SPAD?

    Pruitt
    Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

    Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

    by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
      While I applaud the modernization of a Helicopter I have long admired, is this the best use of our money? Is the state of the art of design on the aircraft so perfect a better design can't be found? If we can keep using designs from the 40s and 50s (B-52s and CH-47) why can't they bring back the A-1D SPAD?

      Pruitt
      Because the A-10 does it better? And neither of those two examples where designed in the 40s, The BUFF was designed in the 50s and the S**thook was designed in the 60s.

      Global Security:
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch-47f-ich.htm
      The current CH-47D cargo helicopter fleet is unable to support the requirements of a primarily CONUS based, contingency force. The operational capability that is critical to support this wide range of contingencies is not provided by current cargo helicopter systems without improvements. Existing cargo helicopters performed admirably in the past; however, the current capability erodes with an aging fleet. The first CH-47D aircraft reached their service life goal of 20 years in 2002 (Note: The CH-47D was remanufactured from CH-47 A, B, and C model aircraft). Continually increasing maintenance man-hour per flight hour rates, resulting from years of high use, are adversely impacting units’ ability to maintain the fleet to Army standard. Increases in O&S costs, cargo weight, range requirements, operational tempo, emphasis on rapid self-deployability, and threat anti-aircraft capabilities have reduced the effectiveness of the CH-47D fleet. The CH-47D cannot communicate in the Army Force XXI digital battlefield network without new equipment.

      ...

      The ICH program was intended to restore CH-47D airframes to their original condition and extend the aircraft's life expectancy another 20 years (total life of 60 years) until the 2025-2030 timeframe. The program was to remanufacture CH-47 aircraft, reduce the aircraft's vibration, thereby reducing Operations and Support costs, and allow the aircraft to operate on the Army XXI digitized battlefield by incorporating a 1553 data bus providing a digital communications and situational awareness capability. The ICH will also acquire the capability to carry 16,000 pounds of external/internal cargo for a 50 NM combat radius at 4000 feet pressure altitude and 95 degrees fahrenheit. In addition, the following improvements will be incorporated into the aircraft:

      * Fuselage stiffening and possible active systems for vibration reduction (this is expected to lead to improved reliability and therefore reduced operating and support costs)
      * Integrated cockpit
      * Digital architecture for Force XXI compatibility

      Additional improvements may be incorporated into the aircraft if funding permits. The ICH will transport weapons, ammunition, equipment, troops, and other cargo in general support of combat units and operations other than war. The ICH is a dominant maneuver platform that provides focused logistics to the force. The ICH program was built as a "bare bones" program to satisfy the battlefield requirements of operations on the 21st century digital battlefield by replacing the existing 1970s technology cockpit with a new cockpit.

      Comment


      • #4
        The prototype of the Skyraider was first flown on 18 March 1945.

        Development of the medium lift Boeing Vertol (models 114 and 414) CH-47 Series Chinook began in 1956

        Because the A-10 does it better? And neither of those two examples where designed in the 40s, The BUFF was designed in the 50s and the S**thook was designed in the 60s.
        When you question Pruitt's info you should do a fresh check of the facts

        HP
        Last edited by Half Pint John; 17 Aug 07, 07:19.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          The project that eventually yielded the B-52 began in 1946. The design work for the B-52 began in 1947... a man actually carved the ideas in Balsa wood as he heard them, realtime. The contract for the 1st 2 prototypes was cut to Boeing in 1948.

          On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

          ACG History Today

          BoRG

          Comment


          • #6
            I am not always right, but I am smokin' on this...

            Originally posted by the_redstar_swl View Post
            Because the A-10 does it better? And neither of those two examples where designed in the 40s, The BUFF was designed in the 50s and the S**thook was designed in the 60s.

            Global Security:
            http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch-47f-ich.htm
            redstar,

            Do me a favor and go to that Global Security article and find the entry that just says CH 47 Chinook. If you click on it you will be able to read that the CH 47 design work began in 1956. I already knew the Air Force began work on the B-52 in the late 40's. It takes a good 10 to 15 years to get an idea on the designer's board to factory to the troops.

            Actually it is a good comparison by giving the A-10 instead of a A-1D. That is probably what we would get today if we asked for an aircraft with similar design characteristics of the old SPAD. If we started a new design for a heavy Lift Helicopter, would we be able to get an arguably more advanced design as the A-10 was over the A-1D?

            How many years can we stretch out some of these aircraft?

            Pruitt
            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              How many years can we stretch out some of these aircraft?
              Well, considering the shitstorm that seems to brew up every time the military tries to design something new (F-22, F-35, B-2, V-22, Stryker, etc), I don't blame them for trying to extend the life of their existing platforms.
              Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

              Comment


              • #8
                i think more it would be too costly to develope a chinook replacement than it would be to upgrade the current versions or new builds..
                owner of the yahoo group for WW1 ,WW2 and Modern TO&Es
                (Tables of organisation & equipment or Unit of action )

                http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/TOandEs/

                Comment


                • #9
                  It will definitely be cheaper.That little fracas in the Middle East is probably eating up all our R&D money. I wish we could see if we could get a better heavy lift platform.

                  Pruitt
                  Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                  Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                  by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Deployed at Fort Campbell:

                    http://combat-missions.com/in-the-ne...-fort-campbell

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X