Should the CH-53 replace the UH-60 as the USMC transport helo?

Beckwith · Post by **Beckwith** » 2005-11-18 20:41

'[PTG wrote: Stu007']would love to see merlin for the british (thinks of the awesome thunderous noise it makes, ahhhhh)

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-18 20:56

Hmm... I personally would like to see the UH1-Y implemented rather than the UH1-N...

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-11-18 21:07

Mad Max wrote:They left a floater! Wonder if thats actually floating or it has something under it? Looks like it's been ditched actually.

That's actually a photo of an old USAF (paint scheme makes it recognizable) HH-3 "Jolly Green Giant," an offshoot of the Sea King, which could make water landings (the Coast Guard used it for a long time, too, as the "Pelican"). The slightly downward turned tailboom was distinctive of the HH-3. The "boat-hull" fuselage was kind of a Sikorsky trademark for a while and made its way into their joint venture with Aerospatiale, the Super Frelon.

[R-PUB wrote:GRB]Like i said, the Marines DO use the HH-60 sometimes, but its usually only for practicing or executing water evacs...So i dont think it has any particular role in BF2..

The Marines (and US forces in general) will get transport from whoever they can if the operations order requires it. The aircraft are operated by their respective services rather than loaned out, so Marines may have been inserted or extracted by Air Force HH-60G Pave Hawks, Navy HH-60H Seahawks or even Army U/MH-60L/K Blackhawks at one time or another. USAF and US Army Special Operations pilots do train to operate from ships and I know for certain that Army pilots have done so on occasion (Operations Prime Chance / Earnest Will).

[R-PUB wrote:Beckwith]the Naval variations of the '53 do float the botom is specially sealed water tight so it CAN float,

The unprepared (i.e., without buoyancy bags or similar) floatation capability of the Navy and Marine Corps Sea Stallion (H-53D) and Super Stallion/Sea Dragon (H-53E) I'm unsure of. Have not seen a highly authoritative source that confirms them for sure. An active duty Pave Low flight engineer confirmed to me that the USAF MH-53J/M (which is based on the older H-53D airframe) cannot make a non-emergency water landing due to the increased weight of the PAVE systems package.

[R-PUB wrote:Beckwith]as far if there still making them i believe the Air Force PaveLow is a much newer make than some of the other variations, i could be wrong but i believe there alot more hightech and durable than the Navy/Marine versions

Hightech in terms of avionics, yes. Durability is probably about the same. But as mentioned, the Pave Low III and IV are based on the older, twin engine H-53D. Not sure if their airframes have been remanufactured or not.

The H-53Es are classified by Sikorsky as a different airframe altogether, with three engines for an even greater lift capacity. So much so that the CH-53D Sea Stallions used by the Marines are now found in "Medium Lift" Squadrons.

Fun fact: the H-53s, despite being fucking huge, are also the fastest helicopters in the US inventory.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-18 21:12

Not much love for the CH-53...

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-18 21:27

I love the CH-53...More specifically the CH-53E Super Stallion. The sound it creates is unmistakeable...Its just, DEEP..

Heres a beautiful shot of it:

Look at that damn thing, its so SEXI!:

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-18 21:31

^That's it... Project Reality NEEDS that thing (CH-53E)

It's so beautiful

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-18 22:52

Its a daunting task for a modeller and skinner to create one...Its HUGE and very detail-oriented...But im sure the developers are up to the challenge..At least one can hope..

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-18 22:56

Well, if you guys are too lazy for that, make a UH1-Y! It's alot smaller and I'd imagine it wouldn't take so much time to model and skin.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-18 23:43

You'll probably see the UH-1 first, but its not because of laziness, i can assure you of that.

All of the Developers and Project Reality team members all have private lives too. (School, work, females, cars...) We all do what we can, when we can, to help make everything work out right. After all, PR is all about pure quality and a top notch gaming experience. So all I can say is that EVERYONE on the Project Reality team works very hard to make Project Reality all that it is..

Also, I'de like to see other things in the Mod as well.. So if the CH-53E will take up more time than the UH-1, obviously i feel that it should be put on hold until we have more stuff to work with...

Laziness is not an option.

All things aside though, I agree, I'de love to see the CH-53E as well as the UH-1...So we can finally do away with that pesky Blackhawk...Or find somewhere else to put it.

PghJoker · Post by **PghJoker** » 2005-11-19 01:17

I had to vote no. Replacing the 60 "because the USMC doesn't use it" is an invalid argument due to the fact that many many times, the USN pulls taxi duty for the USMC. Adding the 53s' would kick ***. Remember kids...Marine is short for My *** Rides In Navy Equipment.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-19 01:36

PghJoker wrote:I had to vote no. Replacing the 60 "because the USMC doesn't use it" is an invalid argument due to the fact that many many times, the USN pulls taxi duty for the USMC. Adding the 53s' would kick ***. Remember kids...Marine is short for My *** Rides In Navy Equipment.

Since when? Show me proof...(movies dont count)

As far as i know, the Marines have PLENTY of transportation...

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2005-11-19 02:08

PghJoker wrote:I had to vote no. Replacing the 60 "because the USMC doesn't use it" is an invalid argument due to the fact that many many times, the USN pulls taxi duty for the USMC. Adding the 53s' would kick ***. Remember kids...Marine is short for My *** Rides In Navy Equipment.

yeah, big boats. Then we take CH-53's CH-46's and UH-1N's, C-130's etc. etc. to the battle! to the battle! Remember punk, Navy stands for..... Stay the hell away from the battle (most of em anyways. cept for medics, SEALS and the pilots.)

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-11-19 03:02

chill guys, no reason to get overheated about this. the navy and marines compliment eachother very well. without the 'stay the hell away from battle' people logistics (which are the most important ingredients to a fighting force) would dry up, and without the Marines to ride in the USN's vehicles, the USN would be much smaller and much less potent.

Mainly, lets stop talking about 'replacing' and start talking corrections and ADDING. make the changes to the 60 thats in game now so that its the seahawk, add in the transport helos used by marines, add the british add their vehicles, keep adding. take away only what is totally incorrect and inaccurate.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-19 03:03

When was the last time you saw a squad of marines get transported via Blackhawk?

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2005-11-19 03:12

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow']Mainly, lets stop talking about 'replacing' and start talking corrections and ADDING. make the changes to the 60 thats in game now so that its the seahawk, add in the transport helos used by marines, add the british add their vehicles, keep adding. take away only what is totally incorrect and inaccurate.

Agreed...

True wisdom..lol.

Post by **Happy** » 2005-11-19 03:48

'[R-PUB wrote:BrokenArrow'] without the Marines to ride in the USN's vehicles, the USN would be much smaller and much less potent.

LoL but true the Navy gets them anywhere they want to go.

Noetheinner · Post by **Noetheinner** » 2005-11-19 03:55

sorry, just venting there above.

Post by **BrokenArrow** » 2005-11-19 05:47

=BONG=Happy wrote:LoL but true the Navy gets them anywhere they want to go.

uh huh, and what if there were no marines? what would all the chopper pilots be doing? my point is, as i stated before they compliment each other well, so theres no reason to say 'oh well this service only functions properly because of this service' because really they wouldnt function as well without each other.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2005-11-19 05:48

'[R-PUB wrote:GRB']Since when? Show me proof...(movies dont count)

As far as i know, the Marines have PLENTY of transportation...

24th MEU(SOC) [above] and 2nd FAST Company [below] Marines deploying and training with US Navy M/CH-60S Knighthawks.

Cerberus wrote:When was the last time you saw a squad of marines get transported via Blackhawk?

July of 2003; Monrovia, Liberia

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']The Marines (and US forces in general) will get transport from whoever they can if the situation requires it. The aircraft are operated by their respective services rather than loaned out, so Marines have been inserted/extracted or medevaced by Air Force HH-60G Pave Hawks, Navy HH-60H Seahawks or even Army U/MH-60L/K Blackhawks at one time or another. USAF and US Army Special Operations pilots do train to operate from ships and I know for certain that Army pilots have done so on occasion (Operations Prime Chance / Earnest Will).

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2005-11-19 16:45

I've been proven wrong once again