Ch-47 Chinook - Shipboard Capabilities

[TR23]

What are the capabilites of the Chinook on a ship?  It seems like a huge aircraft to hanger and repair, especially with the huge rotor area.  Do the rotor blades fold on chinooks?  Is there a modification available to allow it?
Is the chinook able to operate for long periods of time in salt water/spray environment?  I know it has at various points, with the falklands coming to mind, but I was wondering if it was 'certified' or whatever process is involved.
If the CF buys amphibious ships, plus JSS, would the chinook be a good match at all?  It seems like the army's favorite, but how does that integrate with the navy?

Thanks for any responses, I know very little about the CF, but I am always looking to learn more.

TR23

 

[TR23]

Oh, and moderators, if this thread should be a subtopic under one of the other chinook/helicopter threads, I apologize.

 

[Sf2]

Right now, I don't think there is a ship in Canada's inventory that would allow a Chinook to land on safely - even the Sea King needs to fold the tail in order to fit in its hangar.

As far as salt water environments, there's nothing stopping it from operating in those locations, however I'm sure there would be some sort of washing cycle for the airframe and engines.

Sea King length 73 ft
Chinook Length 99 ft

I think the only ship that would fit a chinook would either be a full blown carrier, or an expeditionary ship similar to what the marines use

 

[Cloud Cover]

Tip of rotor to tip of rotor, it's way too big for the currently designed JSS-IIRC the JSS SOR states must be able to operate two helicopters from the flight deck simultaneously. It would take a mighty big ship to carry any more than 4 Chinooks and operate 2 at the same time. For amphib purposes I would think we are looking at a small flat top, like the Spanish design or perhaps the Dutch ship that comes in at 27,000 tons and  18,000 tons respectively.


The Largs Bay class ship LPD can operate 2 Chinooks off the flight deck, but has very limited capability to transport/stow and maintian them. I don't think the LPD 17 is any better.  

The Spanish or Dutch flat tops seem to be the type of ship that is required. Personally, I don't think the government is going to sign on to this class of a ship- makes too much sense.

I don't know what solution they are contemplating, but you can bet it will be old, expensive, of limited practical use and will have a short shelf life. I fear they are going to do what the Aussies did, and buy some old US tank landing craft and convert them to multi-purpose assault vessels.  

What is really required are LHA's. Fat chance.

Check out Richard Beedals Navy Matters site- some of his pages discuss options and programs for the RN- some of which are applicable [in theory] for the Canadian Navy. http://navy-matters.beedall.com/lphr.htm

Cheers.

 

 

[Good2Golf]

What are the capabilites of the Chinook on a ship?   It seems like a huge aircraft to hanger and repair, especially with the huge rotor area.   Do the rotor blades fold on chinooks?   Is there a modification available to allow it?
Is the chinook able to operate for long periods of time in salt water/spray environment?   I know it has at various points, with the falklands coming to mind, but I was wondering if it was 'certified' or whatever process is involved.
If the CF buys amphibious ships, plus JSS, would the chinook be a good match at all?   It seems like the army's favorite, but how does that integrate with the navy?

Thanks for any responses, I know very little about the CF, but I am always looking to learn more.

TR23

TR,

Firstly, the CH-47 doesn't have a blade self-folding capability, but the blades can be de-linked at the lead/lag damper and swung into an "administratively stowed" position resting on specially constructed blade stands over the central  fuselage so that the blades fit entirely within the foot print of the Chinook.  This capability was developed by Boeing but is not a standard procedure and is not currently used by any CH47 operators. 

Interstingly, the Chinook with blades folded (albeit not a normal or self-powered procedure) then has a smaller footprint and volume space than the EH-101 -- the Chinook's fuselage is 51' long, 12' 5" wide and 19' tall at the aft pylon, while the EH-101 fuselage is 64' long, 14' 9" wide and 21' 8" tall at the highest point of the tai rotor's blades.....hmmmm....

Some will say the Chinook is not "fully marinized"...a statement more false than true.  It is mostly the inability to fold the rotor blades under own-power for stowage that people say this.  The Chinook is in fact significantly marinized, with anti-corrosion coatings in all areas that would be exposed to water during amphibious (swimming) operations.  Interestingly, the Chinook is rated to land and operate in the water at up to sea-state 3 -- greater that the Sea King to SS2, IIRC and the "not at all amphibious" EH-101.  CH-47 engines and other driveline components on the upper fuselage were not specifically treated for fresh or salt-water exposure and so fresh water rinsing would be required...much like the Australian Army Air Corps does with their CH-47D's that operate at stations near their coasts.

It would appear that the CH-47 and Canada's upcoming Sea King replacement, the Sikorsky CH148 Cyclone share the characteristic...neither of them currently has a blade folding mechanism...

Cheers,
Duey

Neat site with info on US Army/Navy JSHIP trials (includes (worksafe) vids)

 

[Cloud Cover]

Good stuff. So in theory, a Chinook could be stuffed into a CPF hangar already modified for the '148?  Yikes. Is the flight deck large enough for one to take off and land?

Also, the Austin class LPD, like many others, has no capacity to store/maintain the bird. The JSS will presumably have some [lots] of capacity for this. If I understand where you're going with this, the JSS will transport the Chinooks alongside the LPD. The Chinook will conduct ops off the LPD, but be serviced by the JSS?
Also, one ship is effectively tied to the other if the LPD is deployed.

Why has Sikorsky not provided for folding baldes on the 148? After all, they built this mechanism into the Sea King and the Sea Hawk [and Sea Dragon IIRC].

Cheers.

 

[Good2Golf]

W601, Sikorsky is working on the 148's folding blades, it's just tat the S-92 currently has no such capability.  Re: LPD vice JSS-like ship...it depends on how the "big flat" ship (the amphib) and the "big fat" ship (JSS) spec out.  Since I understand the Navy doesn't want to mess with the JSS (and I don't at all blame them), I would say it will be the amphib which must adjust.

The following is unverified rumour; however, I have heard that Maersk is putting together a very convincing argument to the Cdn gov't to mod one of their S-class container ships to an amphib...an S-class is huge!  Even if you only used 2/3 of the foredeck, by my calculations you could literally operate 6+ Chinnoks from a converted S-class containership such as the Sovereign Maersk...  >

...food for thought... ;D

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Kirkhill]

The Maersk beast looks more like a floating Warehouse than an amphib Duey.  Not a bad thing.

Off topic - looks like room enough in her to stow a couple of Tanks and a bowser of diesel or two.

It would tend to change the rationale on what was deployable, what wasn't, how much and how long.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Good2Golf]

The Maersk beast looks more like a floating Warehouse than an amphib Duey.   Not a bad thing.

Off topic - looks like room enough in her to stow a couple of Tanks and a bowser of diesel or two.

It would tend to change the rationale on what was deployable, what wasn't, how much and how long.

Fingers crossed.

Certainly room for a Battle Group easily!  The only thing I haven't heard addressed substantively on the converted S-class issue is the well-deck for LC's (LCU, LCM, but most likely NOT the LCACs)

It still supports the two ships (big fat / big flat) idea forming the backbone of the SCTF.  The post I had in the SCTF thread has a link to the US doing the same thing with S-class ships and apparently the Chinese have already done this with their own container ships...a quick Google of "S-class" "amphibious" "conversion" will net some interesting results.  The US case includes fairly detailed business case numbers.

I remember seeing on Discovery Channel the Hapag-Lloyd S-class container ship "Shanghai Express".  These things are not only huge, but they smoke along at 25/26 kts...you can water ski behind the darned things they move so fast!

Cheers,
Duey

 

[TR23]

Duey - those S class ships present interesting opportunities, and apparently someone else came up with the idea first.  Trojan horse indeed.  Interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The following is unverified rumour; however, I have heard that Maersk is putting together a very convincing argument to the Cdn gov't to mod one of their S-class container ships to an amphib...an S-class is huge!  Even if you only used 2/3 of the foredeck, by my calculations you could literally operate 6+ Chinnoks from a converted S-class containership such as the Sovereign Maersk...

Duey:  I'd heard much the same and that the Maersk idea was a very serious one...wonder if our sources are the same!  ;D  Six Chinooks is about right, given what we're after...  Hmmmm.

Teddy

 

[BillN]

Before I joined 450 Sqn in 1983 there had been landing trials on Destroyers and Frigates.  This was before the CPF's came into service.  I do remember that there was a picture of one of our Chinooks sitting on a ships flight deck hanging in the CO's office, but I cannot recall what ship it was.

Having stood on the flight deck of the WINNIPEG when my wife sailed for the Gulf, I'm not sure I'd like to land a Chinook on it.  I've done some small confined areas in my time, but not that small

Bill

 

[Kirkhill]

Is this what you were referring to Duey?

http://rusi.4t2depot.com/downloads/pub_rds/Carmel.pdf

Is there anything that is NOT possible?  If cash?

 

[Cloud Cover]

$1.3 Billion USD. Quite a chunk of change, but what a ship!!!! I wonder what design standards are- Naval architecture with damage control, fire fighting and hard impact survivability?

5,000 troops in one of the configurations- 72 Sea Knights in another. WOW!! 

 

[Kirkhill]

Vessel conversions should not
be viewed as competition to, or a
replacement of, purpose build vessels, but as
an excellent way to obtain interim capability:conversion vessels allow fleet commanders to
get the capability ultimately intended for
new built vessels, but in a very quick, costeffective
way, while the concept of
operations can be developed and refined
using vessels that provide a very close proxy
for the ultimate vessel. Thus, when it comes
time for the government to write a cheque
for a ship costing $1.3 bn, the design concepts
have been tested and will achieve mission
requirements.[/b] Conversions make excellent
proof-of-concept and spiral-development
platforms.

Whiskey - not sure that the article is saying that the acquisition and conversion would cost 1.3 Bn.  I think that paragraph could also be read as saying the Converted S-Class is a cheaper ALTERNATIVE to a 1.3 Bn dollar ship, such as an LPD-17.  That would seem to be more in line with the concept of this being an affordable solution.

For what its worth.

But either way.  Dead right.  Some ship.  15 CH-47 on the deck.

As to vulnerability - over to you old seadogs out there.  How difficult is to sink a ship that size (6600 TEU or ~ 140,000 tonnes dead weight)?  Even with a 500lb Harpoon or ADCAP Mk48 warhead?.  Would a hold full of containers make it more buoyant?

And while on the subject of Jointness:

Some experts call for an MPF Future flight deck 1,000 feet long and wide enough to accommodate the C-130, which flew off an aircraft carrier in tests 40 years ago and is being considered as a "connector" craft to shuttle troops and materiel from the sea base to shore. Unlike vertical lift craft, the C-130 can transport the 20-ton cargo container, a basic storage mode for war materiel.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/jun_04_20.php

C-130s? C-27s? How fast CAN they stop?

This gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The problem with civilian vessels is their damage control and redundant systems. If you decide to add damage control and redundant systems to a civilian vessel to the standard of a military vessel you might as well just go and buy a purpose built military vessel.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Thinks for the correction Kirkhill. Okay.. how much are we talking here... is there a budget for the amphib that is known to the public?

 

[Good2Golf]

Kirkhill, yup, that's it...that's the one I was looking for!  There is also another one in open source that I'm trying to "re-find"...it costed an S-class conversion at about $300-350M USD.  I was trying to be conservative with the CH47 on deck number but you can see that we would likely be able to fit the entire fleet on one of these "big flat" ships...

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Kirkhill]

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1290/printArticle.html

I'll re-link to this article - it is a RoRo of similar class.  New build price is 160 MAUD or 120 MUSD.

300-350 MUSD for a conversion of an existing, slightly used hull doesn't seem totally ridiculous to this food scientist. ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

It seems that the bare-bones ship, as new in 2001, probably cost on the order of 80 MUSD to build.

Samsung built two for a Hong Kong carrier for 160 MUSD total.

Last November, Hong Kong-based Orient Overseas (International) Ltd., the parent company of OOCL, ordered two 7,400-TEU containerships from the Korean shipbuilder Samsung Heavy Industries. They are expected to be delivered in the second quarter of 2003. The two post-Panamax containerships will cost a total of $160 million, Orient Overseas (International) Ltd. said.

http://www.americanshipper.com/paid/MAY01/how_much_bigger.asp

And a note on safety (presumably packed with containers)

Safety of container ships

Compared, to bulk carriers or general cargo ships, so far container ships have a very good safety record. Apart from collisions or groundings caused by operational errors, very few container ships have suffered serious damage or have been lost at sea. Particularly for big vessels, very few cases of major damage have been observed.

MS Carlo was, in fact, the first container vessel to break in two in the winter storms of 1997/98. This unintended full-scale experiment demonstrated that these ships with high freeboard and closely spaced watertight transverse bulkheads are intrinsically safe: both parts of the ship remained afloat and were salvaged after the storm. There are other risks for container ships such as excessive wave loads, loss of containers at sea, a lack of dynamic stability and the danger of fire in containers. Container stowage on deck - an archaic system

http://amchouston.home.att.net/cs.htm

From a couple of other articles I get the sense that these beasts only have crews of 14 to 19 all-ranks.