Sudan Rescue- Helo vs Osprey

[sinister]

Osprey = 24 troop seats.

Leg Army CH-47F = 44 troop seats. MH-47 has fewer seats if internal fuel bladder installed.

RAF Chinook "Bravo November" transited 88 war-loaded paratroops seated on the floor in the Falklands.

If carrying SF shooters, they'll probably want to fly out when the helo leaves as well. It's always a long way/fight out of a contested NEO evacuation if you have to walk.

[Lawnchair 04]

Didn’t the California national guard pack in almost 50 people (in a 47) during one of the wild fire rescues in recent history? I’m sure their situation dictated that was necessary, under normal circumstances we are limited to as many packs as there are seats available. Not sure if the 47 has center line seating capabilities or not. The 53 does which bumps us from 30 to 55 but I can tell you we never used them. Much easier to get a commander to sign off on a seats out waiver and have packs ride on the floor.

[sinister]

I don't remember how many floor-seated pax we had in an MH-53 -- but a lot, with a moonless night goggles over-the-ocean tanking.

[ZGXtreme]

Didn’t the California national guard pack in almost 50 people (in a 47) during one of the wild fire rescues in recent history? I’m sure their situation dictated that was necessary, under normal circumstances we are limited to as many packs as there are seats available. Not sure if the 47 has center line seating capabilities or not. The 53 does which bumps us from 30 to 55 but I can tell you we never used them. Much easier to get a commander to sign off on a seats out waiver and have packs ride on the floor.

My buddy created the Hangar Z Podcast and in Episode 5 titled “Flying Through Fire and the Distinguished Flying Cross” he had the pilot; CWO 5 Rosamond, on to discuss that mission.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1vR...SZMEfx6PA&dd=1

[Lawnchair 04]

I don't remember how many floor-seated pax we had in an MH-53 -- but a lot, with a moonless night goggles over-the-ocean tanking.

Nice low light haar over water is a great time I’m sure the crew was so excited lol.

[chuckman]

I don't remember how many floor-seated pax we had in an MH-53 -- but a lot, with a moonless night goggles over-the-ocean tanking.

I hated being in the back for refueling. You feel it, even if you never see it. Especially at night.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So where does the Osprey excel? It letting our Amphib ships operate further out to sea?

[Lawnchair 04]

So where does the Osprey excel? It letting our Amphib ships operate further out to sea?

Honestly not in my experience, on my last boat ride we were not able to launch with packs in the back unless we were within 20 NM of land, granted that was directed by the MEU CO but hey what’s the point of having something capable if people won’t let you use the capabilities? In my eyes and I’m a jaded 53 guy I see the osprey as a perpetual money pit that we keeping pouring our budget into. They can’t move 24 combat loaded troops either, so if it does excel at something I am unaware of it.

[Hank6046]

So where does the Osprey excel? It letting our Amphib ships operate further out to sea?

Speed in the air. The Osprey is much faster to get in and out and that is important against manpads and ground fire, I was raised on the CH-53E but even in 2010 it was made clear that the Osprey was the future, and the reason that the Marine Corps and soon the Army (supposedly, article linked below) will go to the VSTOL type platform.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry...d-in-40-years/

[chuckman]

Honestly not in my experience, on my last boat ride we were not able to launch with packs in the back unless we were within 20 NM of land, granted that was directed by the MEU CO but hey what’s the point of having something capable if people won’t let you use the capabilities? In my eyes and I’m a jaded 53 guy I see the osprey as a perpetual money pit that we keeping pouring our budget into. They can’t move 24 combat loaded troops either, so if it does excel at something I am unaware of it.

It IS a money pit. The -46 was going to go regardless, but I am not sure anyone is convinced the Osprey was the best answer.

Speed in the air. The Osprey is much faster to get in and out and that is important against manpads and ground fire, I was raised on the CH-53E but even in 2010 it was made clear that the Osprey was the future, and the reason that the Marine Corps and soon the Army (supposedly, article linked below) will go to the VSTOL type platform.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry...d-in-40-years/

Being the AC of the future did not pan out so well. Yeah, they are using them, but they are already looking at its' replacement. It cannot replace the -53 and it is limited in its' role.