Close sidebar

Photos – Sea Stallion lands aboard HMAS Canberra

written by australianaviation.com.au | July 19, 2016

A United States CH-53E Super Stallion aircraft from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463 based at Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii lands on the flight deck of HMAS Canberra off the coast of Hawaii during Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2016.A United States Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion has landed aboard HMAS Canberra for the first time, becoming the largest helicopter type to land abroad an Australian LHD amphibious assault ship.

The heavy lift helicopter from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463 landed on HMAS Canberra’s flightdeck on July 17 as the ship was off the coast of Hawaii taking part in RIMPAC 2016.

A few days earlier a USMC MV-22 Osprey had also landed aboard the Canberra for the first time as part of a US Navy and USMC aviation integration program to clear its rotary-wing assets for operations from the RAN’s new LHDs.

Advertisement
Advertisement

All photos Dept of Defence

A United States Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463 lands on the flight deck of HMAS Canberra off the coast of Hawaii during Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2016. Aviation Support sailors move in to chock and chain a United States Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter on the flight deck of HMAS Canberra off the coast of Hawaii during Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2016.

 

Fly into Spring with Australian Aviation’s latest print edition. Starting from $49.95 a year, you can read comprehensive coverage on all sectors of the industry to keep you in the loop. Get your hands on the subscription today. Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

PROMOTED CONTENT

23 Comments

  • Scott Strachan

    says:

    Awesome, now lets go get some!

  • Fabian

    says:

    Their is a new version of this aircraft. The King stallion and it can carry more. Australia should just think a little about having a heavy lift heli for the RAN’s aircraft fleet. I would like some changes in the RAN’s fleet.

  • Derrick Aguero

    says:

    Been saying for a long time we should get the ch-53k for the navy or at least the MV-22 as a heavy lift for the navy. But instead we put rotor breaks on the ch-47f to make them usable on the LHD, pitty about the hight and that you would have to take apart both the front and rear gearbox assembly…….

  • Jason

    says:

    So what is the stated requirement for a Navy heavy lift helo capability?

  • Harry

    says:

    Derrickck, are the Ch-47s to big for being parked in the hull?

  • Fabian

    says:

    No I don’t think so. The chinooks can fit in the hull or hangar of the lhd. It would be a tight fit tho.

  • Jason

    says:

    No

  • the road runner

    says:

    Would be nice to have MV-22 or CH-53 in the ADF but our force is to small to bring a squadron of these into the ADF. The cost associated with purchasing these aircraft is minimal compared to costs such as Training/logistics/spare parts and support costs for life of type of a new helicopter.

    Better to purchase helicopters that are already in use in the ADF and take advantage of an established training/spares pool..

    The ADF could do with a couple more Squadrons of helicopters.. I would like to see Navy give its NH90s back to Army and purchase more Seahawks/Nighthawks to operate from the LHD,while also being a similar platform to the Romeo’s that are in service

  • Derrick Aguero

    says:

    Instead of buying the NH-90 we should have bought the MH-60S knighthawk. A navel version on the blackhawk; folding rotors, folding tail, enlarged cabin, extra load points, extended fuel range and a larger payload.

  • Raymond

    says:

    Oh, a new aircraft type has just landed on an RAN LHD… quick, we need to buy some now!

    Umm, yes wouldn’t it be nice to have a mini-US armed forces with some of everything… problem is the budget only goes so far, and we already have a lot of great (and expensive) kit currently being introduced or on order.

    Don’t forget the additional CH-47F’s.

    It’s all very well wanting everything, but what about a little bit of realism… a whole new fleet comes with a whole lot of extra cost.

  • Jason

    says:

    Derrick – The MH-60S has about half the cabin space of the MRH 90, and wasn’t even a contender when the MRH was chosen. The only area the MRH is now lacking is in the assault role which the Black hawk will retain for the time being, and the long-standing poor sustainment. As a transport helo it is excellent, with plenty of space and great handling, range and endurance, and has proven to be very reliable when deployed.

    Raymond – good post!

  • Harry

    says:

    Derrick. The Romeos are supposed to be an assault helicopter. They will be great for special forces insertion with their hellfire’s etc. Would be good to see them on the ship too if they can make it.

    Raymond, Agreed! If their is a need the army could just park their Chinooks – glad to hear they can fit, just – on the deck, but I couldn’t see why… (btw Chinooks cost around the same as an F-35 apparently – someone was arguing this the other day but the F-35s price is all over the shop still!)

    Jason, where those last comments about the NH90s?

  • Blacky

    says:

    Its a nice helicopter but, (1) Its not European. What these big tank style aircraft pack into their size Eurocopter have done in a lightweight frame the size of an MRH90. (2) Its too big, Why would Australia want to put so many people on a helicopter over the ocean, we have seen what happens to MH 370 when it sinks. This would sink much quicker. (3) The US helicopters have a pedal return sponge in the flight controls on deck landings, to hop out of a European helicooter and into on of those over the water would be just too dangerous.

  • Samual

    says:

    Hi Blacky … I would have thought that this helicopter not being European would be preferable.. The MRH90 and Tiger helicopters have not come anywhere near living up to expectations.

    The more people and equipment you can load into a helicopter the better. The whole point of having an amphib that can operate lots of helicopters is deploying as many soldiers and as much equipment as quickly as possible.

    Having said that … I wouldn’t buy them for Australia. It would make more sense for Australia to buy extra Chinooks,

    .

  • Fabian

    says:

    True that, although it is a high tech aircraft, the MRH-90 is a standard multirole helicopter, the RAN’s Romeo hawks are sort of assault and can carry troops. The ch-53 k King stallion can be used as a solid troop transporter and can carry very heavy loads. It would be perfect for large assault operations working with the MRH-90 and the Romeo Hawks. The v-22 would practically do the same thing. The combined heli operations would work well with exercises with the us and their amphibious assault ships. Although in my eyes. The army and navy should have a combined fleet of uh-1y venoms and ah-1z vipers. Viper as attack helicopter replacement for the tiger and the venom as a medium sized multirole troop transporter and can work well with the viper. The USMC uses these aircraft currently. I don’t know why we went for European helicopters when certain helicopters from the us are more trustworthy.

  • Jason

    says:

    Harry & Fabian – The Romeo is NOT an assault helo…with the dipping sonar installed it can carry 3 troops in back. It is a dedicated ASW machine with a limited secondary transport role.

    Harry – my comments were about the MRH 90.

    Blacky – seriously, what???

  • Fabian

    says:

    Depends how you put it, the Romeo hawk can carry hellfire missiles. The MRH is good for multirole and I seriously doubt the Romeo hawk can carry only 3 troops in the back.

  • Carl

    says:

    Having being in the back of a Romeo I can tell you three fully equipped guys would be a struggle especially with a crewman and a mounted weapon. The Romeo’s are a ASW platform with secondary roles in limited cap.

  • Harry

    says:

    Jason. Assault may be the wrong word technically, but when it can and will carry hellfire’s! Then yes there is a potentiality for its use in assault! Although yes, they were bought mainly for the ASW role, and are sorely needed for that role. Neverhteless, its a bit pointless to argue this point when we have Tigers and in the future who knows what.

  • Brian

    says:

    Well, we can’t use the Awful Tiger. Why not just buy some Hinds on the cheap? Carries a few troops and is a bit tasty in the weaponry department!

  • Martin

    says:

    Raymond,

    Well said, Seems each time AA has an article about a US military aircraft type we don’t have in our inventory lots of people want them for the ADF too. Hmmm, wonder when the government (on either side) would ever return to surplus then? Any enemy we might have could simply wait until we have bankrupted the economy and then buy us out.

    There is also a fairly consistent theme in posts (and not just on this topic) that US built aircraft are somehow better than European aircraft. Where does this bias come from? The RAAF has operated many successful European designed and built aircraft over the years. They still do and continue to acquire aircraft from various manufacturers in Europe (see the other AA post as a recent example). I can think of as many troubled ADF aircraft acquisition projects with US origins as I can those with European origins. Lets hope the ADF acquisition processes focus on technical and operational merits and value for money considerations rather than introducing a subjective national bias.

    Finally, if we want a large airborne troop lift capability from our LHD’s, here is my suggestion: Strap a few JATO rockets to some of our C130J’s, a la Operation Credible Sport and bingo… more than any large helo will ever provide! Ok, had my fun.

  • Fabian

    says:

    Sorry Brian, Australia doesn’t do Russian, we do European and us or even Israeli stuff, their stuff is pretty good, I heard that the us is buying products from the Israelis. The viper will do fine for the replacement for the tiger, then you can add in a couple venoms utility. The ADF will do good with them, they are very adaptable to the amphibious assault ships. They are also not to large for the ADF and fit for the perfect conditions here in Australia. I don’t know when the defence minister will know that the viper and the venom are the perfect choice.

  • Martin

    says:

    The August 2016 issue of Australian Aviation arrived today and I see Gerard Frawley has written a nice editorial in NOTAM column regarding managing project risk for capability reward. It relates to the case of the (European) KC-30 tanker transport acquisition for the ADF which now appears to be coming good, Meanwhile the (US) Boeing KC-46 Pegasus seems to be going through its own development pains (I will have to reads up about that later).

    This example reinforces my earlier comments above.

    Gerard: Have you ever considered a career change and put in an application to CASG? In the meantime, keep up the good work managing Australian Aviation,

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Each day, our subscribers are more informed with the right information.

SIGN UP to the Australian Aviation magazine for high-quality news and features for just $99.95 per year