Why Are Marines Slowing CH-53K

Why Are Marines Slowing CH-53K

The heavy-lift CH-53K helicopter was, until earlier this month, an outstanding example of procurement done right. But now—with little concrete justification beyond an “overly aggressive initial program schedule”—the Marine Corps has pushed the first flight back two years to FY 2013 and slid the initial operating capability (IOC) back by three years to FY 2018. While stressing the program has not run into technical problems, the rationale for slowing the CH-53K program has, at best, been poorly articulated.

Why slow the program? When delivered, the new fly-by-wire CH-53K will, in theory, transport 27,000 pounds of external cargo out to a range of 110 nautical miles, nearly tripling the thirty-year old CH-53E’s lift capability under similar environmental conditions–all while fitting under the same shipboard footprint.

The CH-53K will also provide unparalleled lift under high and hot conditions while maintainability and reliability enhancements to the CH-53K will decrease recurring operating costs over the current CH-53E (the CH-53K aims at a more reasonable $10,000 dollars per flight hour while the CH-53E costs twice that). Survivability and force protection enhancements will also increase protection dramatically, for both aircrew and passengers. What’s not to like?


The CH-53K was an unsung showpiece for those preaching the virtues of incremental development, and, as a result, appetite for the platform has grown by about 30 percent, with the program of record expected to increase from156 aircraft to 200.

But, in the process, the CH-53K has become something of a MV-22-killer. Is this the problem?

The CH-53K is steadily eating away at the V-22 Osprey market. In late 2009, the Marine Corps decided to go with the CH-53Ks to replace their 40-year old CH-53D fleet (MV-22 Ospreys were originally slated to replace the CH-53D). At about the same time, Israel decided to forego the Osprey for the CH-53K, killing the Osprey’s best hope of snaring an international buyer. And with the Osprey 65% availability and the MV-22s high operating costs of about $11,000 dollars an hour, the CH-53K posed a serious threat to the MV-22 program.

Even worse, studies from the Pentagon demonstrated that a CH-53K-equipped big-deck amphib provided a lot more logistical support for embarked Marines than the MV-22, suggesting the mix of embarked MV-22s and CH-53Ks needed tweaking (and possibly fewer MV-22s).
Slowing CH-53K development will keep the new helicopter out of the air (and prevent real-data comparisons between platforms) until after a second multi-year MV-22 contract gets signed in FY 2013. Even worse, slowing the CH-53K schedule raised the program price by at least $1.1 billion dollars, raising the per-unit price. The delay may also may dampen the enthusiasm of potential international buyers and give competing firms an opening to exploit this as yet unexplained delay in what was, once, a procurement showpiece. Why slow a program that stands to be a high-demand showpiece with markets in Israel, Germany, France, Turkey, Singapore and Taiwan?

Hopefully Gen. George Trautman, the Marine’s deputy commandant for aviation, will provide some answers…

Join the Conversation

CH-53K could never be considered a Osprey killer. Not unless the CH-53K can match the Osprey’s speed. (Which it isn’t even close!) Tho the CH-53K would most likely reduce the number of Ospreys bought… Either the Marines are hiding something (most likely the case) or they want more Ospreys… (2nd one is likely, but first one is almost certainly dead on!)

Only international market for CH-53K is shipborne heavy lift. CH-47 has land based heavy lift locked up. Tandem rotor out performs tail rotor platforms in high/hot environments.

Is the speed difference really that important a factor in this type of platform? The osprey is a sexy platform but if the readiness numbers are so much better for the CH-53K why shouldn’t it get the wider deployment. The men in the field need a widely available platform.

Nice conspiracy theory, but I think you’re giving Sikorsky a bit too much credit. While the company has achieved some great things in recent years, it has at the same time become notorious for making promises that it cannot deliver on, resulting in program delays such as those experienced with the CH-148, S-76D, X2TD, S-92A+/A++, S-434, RU-38B and now the CH-53K. Despite Sikorsky’s steady flow of upbeat PR fodder, the Kilo program has been slipping for well over a year now, long before the GAO’s DoD program review was published last month.

The team at CT needs to be wary of harming its reputation by allowing its execs and PR team to make promises than it cannot keep. A reputation is a hard thing to recover, especially in the Beltway.

Good point. But if it is Sikorsky, then the Marines shouldn’t mince words. I mean, if it’s Sikorsky, then,.well, we’re all adults.

Nail ‘em.

That’d do more to set a fire under the program than the mincing non-blamey statements they’ve released to date. If it’s Sikorsky, say it’s Sikorsky. And, on the flip side, if it ain’t, tell us it ain’t.

Not exactly.…
Germany, for one, operates older CH-53s (some recently upgraded or will be, although not to the extent of the –K Stallion).
(And I thought at least 1 user in Pacific, but not totally sure: Japan? Taiwan? Philippines?)
And as these age, they’ll need replaced, and the MV-22 cannot transport the German Weisels and other vehicles and some equipment that German forces use their CH-53s for.

Same might be said for Israel: they might need heavier slung payloads (and internally) that the Osprey just isn’t capable of.

This decision to delay the –K Stallion is stupid. It’ll possibly push current and potential customers away more than anything.
Not that they would suddenly buy Russian (Halos aren’t in production anymore, are they?),
but possibly the newer –F Chinooks, which would be a bonus for Bell/Boeing, but a loss for both Sikorsky and USMC, as it means lower production numbers, and thusly higher per airframe price, for the new Stallions.

Another case of leadership (decision makers) favoring pet projects moreso than choosing what’s obviously in the end user’s best interests…

Not enought money in the future DON aviation budget for all of the “exquisite” platforms. V-22 at $72 million per copy and operating costs near or exceeding the current fleet of old CH-53’s coupled with balooning cost of the F-35 VSTOL albatros is eating the Marines procurement lunch. They are neat machines but what we need for today are cheaper to purchase and operate platforms. The “good old days” of the budget are nearing an end.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement