LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Sep 2013 16:25

Just a little tit-bit.750 MI-8/17s ,the clear favourite medium helo worldwide,have now been built.A new variant the MI-171 A2,which will have numerous (100) improvements,including a new composite rotors."X" style tail rotor,deliveries to start in 2015.

The CH-53K variant appears to be in production,and service life upgrades are being considered for older birds,many due to retire soon.It can carry the LAV-25 and the M-198 155mm howitzer,ammo and crew.However,all pale in comparison with the MI-26 which can transport 150 troops,20,000kg of cargo,with a range of 1950km and a speed of 295kph.It was extensively used in the UKhand floods lifting heavy eqpt. for repairing and establishing roads,etc.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 14 Sep 2013 02:58

Had it not been for the Augusta Westland scam, the AW101 is an excellent option. We could have obtained cheaper variants with fewer gizmos.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 14 Sep 2013 03:25

Phillip,
It has been pointed out many a time that just numbers in terms of weight that can be lifted is not sufficient. The Mi-26 is far superior to both the Chinooks and the CH-53K only in your head. There have been reports published on our own Mi-26s having very low serviceability rates. Yet you continue to drone on about the Mi-26.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Sep 2013 04:21

A simple comparison of specs would suffice

Krishna save yourself some BP by not reading everything Philip saar says

Philip saar does not get it when he posts something like this

you see he gets excited by the fact that someone has a working Mi 26. you and me read it and go - wtf - there is a grand total of 20 - oh the joys of dealing with this supply chain - plus it means its a very specialised helo with limited use

The Russian helicopter manufacturer, Rostvertol, is in the process of refurbishing and upgrading the entire fleet of Mi-26s serving in the Russian Air Force. The fleet is estimated to number around 20 helicopters

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Sep 2013 07:09

I don't think you've understood the content of my post.The MI-26 has its own special qualities which no other heavy-lift helo has.Its hold is the size of an AN-12.It has its own merits its role cannot be replaced by another helo half its size and capability.The numbers of MI-26s required by the IAF also do not need to be huge,a dozen would suffice.New MI-26s are being built and guaranteed logistic and serviceability is an aspect that should be included in the fine print of any deal. Therefore,the contest between the two was a mismatch,as it is so obvious that a smaller bird would be cheaper.When the C-17 acquisition was fast-tracked,the Chinook was part of the deal.Simple.The Chinook sized requirement which slots in between the MI-26 and MI-17 is a case by itself.As some have said,more MI-17s,of which a new even more advanced version is being delivered from 2015 perhaps would've sufficed or even EC-725s.The CH-53K is another option too,the heaviest helo that the US is using.There is a good feature on med-heavy tactical helicopters in the July or Aug issue of the ADJ this year,which compares all the main helos in this class both east and west.Worth reading.
http://adj.realviewtechnologies.com/?iid=80011

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Sep 2013 07:14

in terms of future serviceability and upg, the M17v, Merlin and CH53K are hands down winners over the Mi26T.
since we want it for cargo loads only, a austere version of the Merlin / CH53K could have filled the heavy role..perhaps 30-50 airframes in 5 squadrons.
by no means cheap birds, but they do get the job done and are capable of ops over the sea and in bad weather as well...due to maritime roles of merlin/ch53. maritime role means long range instrument and gps based navigation has to be inbuilt.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 14 Sep 2013 12:58

Singha,

CH 53K is still in testing phase with IOC around 2015/prod from 2018 with 226 numbers for the Marines. so it is doubtful if India can get any before 2020+.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Sep 2013 15:00

IA or its artillery is gonna be deployed and supplied by our meager air lift capability against the Chinese hordes who sweep in using their rail and "multi-lane expressway" roads which come right up to the border? Can transport by air really ever compete with transport by roads and rail?

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 14 Sep 2013 18:13

abhik wrote:IA or its artillery is gonna be deployed and supplied by our meager air lift capability against the Chinese hordes who sweep in using their rail and "multi-lane expressway" roads which come right up to the border? Can transport by air really ever compete with transport by roads and rail?

Transport by road and rail have one Achilles heel the road/rail itself. If tht is damaged through a ground attack mission it will prove difficult to get it realy close to the border. Air dropping troops is still possible even if forward bases are damaged. IMHO only.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Sep 2013 18:41

Not to mention that roads and rails stop at the border. Beyond the border, the chinese have a much more difficult job in the hills and gorges of the Himalayas than we have in the flatlands of Tibet, the whole of which is a landing field for out transports.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Sep 2013 19:26

My point was about the throughput, and between air and road/rail it is a no contest. IA has 60,000 stallions and 7000 tatras each has the load carrying capacity of a Mi-17 and Chinook respectively. This is what it takes for the the army to move. Compare this to the couple hundred Mi-17 and dozen Chinooks we are expected to have.
As far as vulnerability of road and rail to air strikes is concerned it can be put out of action only at bridges, tunnels etc. And even these are usually fixed quite quickly. OTOH air assets are going to be the first things that the enemy will attack. Also transport by air will require air superiority.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Sep 2013 19:39

My point was about the throughput, and between air and road/rail it is a no contest.

Gaming cannot take only one thing into consideration - unless it is some colored flag stuff.

The fact of the matter is that both rail and road are very vulnerable to strikes at key point : bridges, nodes, etc.

Then what use is throughput?

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 14 Sep 2013 20:23

NRao wrote:Gaming cannot take only one thing into consideration - unless it is some colored flag stuff.

The fact of the matter is that both rail and road are very vulnerable to strikes at key point : bridges, nodes, etc.

Then what use is throughput?

why do you think air mobility is not vulnerable? you are assuming that air superiority has been established by the IAF so air mobility of artillery is safe and given!! what is the basis for that assumption?? china is no pakistan. on a different note why did the chinese create the road/rail infra if it was vulnerable (more so for them than us!!)??

fact is in the long term rail/road is the 'the' solution. while i agree with abhik on a broader level, in the shorter term it is not possible simply because we have not created the rail/road infra. one can blame both army/MOD for that because of the 'defensive' approach they have adopted for decades (himalayan geography is the ultimate barrier!!). only now it is changing but we are long way off.

IMO all options should be made available while rail/road acts is bread/butter.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 14 Sep 2013 20:30

abhik wrote:My point was about the throughput, and between air and road/rail it is a no contest. IA has 60,000 stallions and 7000 tatras each has the load carrying capacity of a Mi-17 and Chinook respectively. This is what it takes for the the army to move. Compare this to the couple hundred Mi-17 and dozen Chinooks we are expected to have.
As far as vulnerability of road and rail to air strikes is concerned it can be put out of action only at bridges, tunnels etc. And even these are usually fixed quite quickly. OTOH air assets are going to be the first things that the enemy will attack. Also transport by air will require air superiority.

Concept of air superiority is much changed since the days of World War II, where air superiority implies one rules the sky across the board in their as well as enemy territory. Present day I don't think it will be possible for anybody to establish a similar air control (unless its unkil vs taliban), now armies will emphasize more on having temporary air superiority over a specific theatre for a specific time period to achieve specific goals. Because in due course the opponent will bring either fighters or land based air defence. So, if IA wants to airlift they will try to clear the skies for that time frame.

Secondly, as far as throughput is concerned, the bulk movement of man and equipment happens before the break of war. Usually may it be Loc are Lac both sides maintain enough forces to balance the opponent. Once the war starts its about supplying the forward locations in which I think one who has better airlift capability definitely has the advantage. Road depended supply lines are just too slow and easy targets.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Sep 2013 20:47

Boreas wrote:Concept of air superiority is much changed since the days of World War II, where air superiority implies one rules the sky across the board in their as well as enemy territory. Present day I don't think it will be possible for anybody to establish a similar air control (unless its unkil vs taliban), now armies will emphasize more on having temporary air superiority over a specific theatre for a specific time period to achieve specific goals. Because in due course the opponent will bring either fighters or land based air defence. So, if IA wants to airlift they will try to clear the skies for that time frame.

So IA will twiddle its thumbs while IAF attempts to clear the skies? An attempt that has no guarantees of success?

Secondly, as far as throughput is concerned, the bulk movement of man and equipment happens before the break of war.

If you're not the attacker you don't get to choose the timing.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Sep 2013 21:13

Any army will need a the support of a big efficient logistics machine to keep it fighting. Air transport assets cost a 1000 times more than comparable land assets. Air transport cannot replace surface transport. A couple hundred Mi-17 and a dozen Chinooks cannot do the job of tens of thousands of Stallions and Tatras. This is not a matter of choice. Even if you were to consider airborne type formations, they employed only with the assumption that they will be relieved by conventional forces in a matter of days.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Sep 2013 21:51

abhik wrote:IA or its artillery is gonna be deployed and supplied by our meager air lift capability against the Chinese hordes who sweep in using their rail and "multi-lane expressway" roads which come right up to the border? Can transport by air really ever compete with transport by roads and rail?

To the underlined question the simple answer is NOT on cost and NOT on throughput as you have rightly pointed out in one of your later post.

But in the context of your whole post, I think the basic premise of yours is wrong in the sense that they are not competing options. Rail/Road transportation and airlift are not mutually exclusive options but both are part of the same strategy.

Airlift gives the forces the capacity to quickly respond with decent force in an emergency while the road/rail transport kicks in with reinforcements. Also, several spots in the Himalayas can only be reached on foot. Sending material is possible only through helicopters. Moving men and equipment quickly between valleys in the mountains is a challenge via road as has been pointed out by others before.

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Sep 2013 22:24

All of this assumes that we HAVE roads which we do not. Neither can we wait for the slothful GoI/MoD/BRO get their butts together and put down decent roads 20 years from now. Hence the expensive option of depending on airlift. What else is new. M777+MSC are however an entirely different picture and not part of this equation.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 14 Sep 2013 22:29

You are right about rail/road situation on the border but my basic point is *even if we had better* rail/road connectivity to the border than China we still would need AirLift capacity for the reasons outlined above. They are not mutually exclusive!

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 14 Sep 2013 22:54

pankajs wrote:You are right about rail/road situation on the border but my basic point is *even if we had better* rail/road connectivity to the border than China we still would need AirLift capacity for the reasons outlined above. They are not mutually exclusive!

Of course, agreed. That's why I'm qualifying by saying the M777/Chinook etc should not even enter this discussion.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 14 Sep 2013 23:44

pankajs wrote:Airlift gives the forces the capacity to quickly respond with decent force in an emergency while the road/rail transport kicks in with reinforcements. Also, several spots in the Himalayas can only be reached on foot. Sending material is possible only through helicopters. Moving men and equipment quickly between valleys in the mountains is a challenge via road as has been pointed out by others before.

To transport X number of troops/equipment you need Y number of helicopters. If you don't have the Y helicopters you can't transport the X amount of forces that you want to. Simple as that. For this airlift on a large scale argument to be valid you need to define what amount of forces you are expecting to transport(some posters have even suggested that this should be the entire MSC) and consequently what numbers of helicopters you will require. We can then compare the Y with the actual number that India has in the inventory or plans to acquire. This should clear the issue. Lets have this exercise, maybe the gurus can help. Thanks.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 15 Sep 2013 00:01

Do you have the deployment plan of the Army for I don't? Without the plans and the assumptions inherent in the plan is it possible for us outsiders to do the maths? Do we have the expertise to cross-check the Army's maths? I trust the Army to have done its homework for they are the ones on the front-line.

In any case, my point is not the whether x nos or y nos of A or B helis are needed. My point is that the Helis are needed irrespective of road/rail network. For the numbers, I will go with the Army's assessment on Helis and their quantity.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 15 Sep 2013 08:04

abhik wrote:
Boreas wrote:Concept of air superiority is much changed since the days of World War II, where air superiority implies one rules the sky across the board in their as well as enemy territory. Present day I don't think it will be possible for anybody to establish a similar air control (unless its unkil vs taliban), now armies will emphasize more on having temporary air superiority over a specific theatre for a specific time period to achieve specific goals. Because in due course the opponent will bring either fighters or land based air defence. So, if IA wants to airlift they will try to clear the skies for that time frame.
So IA will twiddle its thumbs while IAF attempts to clear the skies? An attempt that has no guarantees of success?

Yes, otherwise the chances of a long column of supply trucks getting destroyed by an enemy air attack is equally open.

abhik wrote:
Secondly, as far as throughput is concerned, the bulk movement of man and equipment happens before the break of war.
If you're not the attacker you don't get to choose the timing.

Do you realize what you said doesn't make any sense? For example - In 71' war Pakistan attacked India. Did -
a. army waiting to start troop movement till Pakistan dropped first bomb or
b. troops and machines were already deployed to counter the enemy? Take a guess.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 15 Sep 2013 08:36

So roads are not in place. They will never be in place. So buy 100 of helos. To fight a war with the PRC. Am I understanding the posts correctly.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Sep 2013 09:39

pragnya wrote:
why do you think air mobility is not vulnerable? you are assuming that air superiority has been established by the IAF so air mobility of artillery is safe and given!! what is the basis for that assumption?? china is no pakistan. on a different note why did the chinese create the road/rail infra if it was vulnerable (more so for them than us!!)??

{Have not read the other posts.}

1) I think air mobility is not as vulnerable because they should use helos. ?????
2) I am assuming we are talking about using helos to port a particular type of artillery across a terrain
3) I am comparing that particular scenario to the one based on rail/road. A 1-1 comparison
4) As far as why China created that system: it has a dual purpose: For internal power projection in Tibet - which is their main function and then to build up against India. India centric efforts are already in place, these systems - during a conflict - if they help, then great. But China will never rely on them to get the job done

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Sep 2013 12:03

pankajs wrote:Do you have the deployment plan of the Army for I don't? Without the plans and the assumptions inherent in the plan is it possible for us outsiders to do the maths? Do we have the expertise to cross-check the Army's maths? I trust the Army to have done its homework for they are the ones on the front-line.

Has the Army actually claimed it plans air deployment on significant scale? Any sources? If not it is speculation on your(and others) part.

In any case, my point is not the whether x nos or y nos of A or B helis are needed. My point is that the Helis are needed irrespective of road/rail network. For the numbers, I will go with the Army's assessment on Helis and their quantity.

Yes, both surface and air transport are required, no arguments there. But when you claim that the Army is going to move significant amount of forces by helicopters it good to check the plausibility. Thats all.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Sep 2013 12:18

Boreas wrote: Yes, otherwise the chances of a long column of supply trucks getting destroyed by an enemy air attack is equally open.

There are things called SAMs. Both air transport and road transport have their vulnerabilities.

If you're not the attacker you don't get to choose the timing.
Do you realize what you said doesn't make any sense? For example - In 71' war Pakistan attacked India. Did -
a. army waiting to start troop movement till Pakistan dropped first bomb or
b. troops and machines were already deployed to counter the enemy? Take a guess.

There was a long run up to 71. What about 47, 62, 65 and 99?
*Edited post to fix quotes.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 15 Sep 2013 13:33

abhik wrote:
pankajs wrote:Do you have the deployment plan of the Army for I don't? Without the plans and the assumptions inherent in the plan is it possible for us outsiders to do the maths? Do we have the expertise to cross-check the Army's maths? I trust the Army to have done its homework for they are the ones on the front-line.
Has the Army actually claimed it plans air deployment on significant scale? Any sources? If not it is speculation on your(and others) part.

The forces are buying Heavy Lift Helis .. so yes I assumed that these new Helis would be used for transporting men and material. If this heavy lift capacity is *significant* in terms of overall capacity, I wouldn't know for I do not have access to the plans.

abhik wrote:
In any case, my point is not the whether x nos or y nos of A or B helis are needed. My point is that the Helis are needed irrespective of road/rail network. For the numbers, I will go with the Army's assessment on Helis and their quantity.
Yes, both surface and air transport are required, no arguments there. But when you claim that the Army is going to move significant amount of forces by helicopters it good to check the plausibility. Thats all.

You seem to have confused me with someone else for word *significant* is not in any of my posts on this page. If the forces have requested for x Chinooks a transporter, then they must be thinking of transporting some thing, more likely men and material .. all my assumption of course.

Again as I have said from the very start, Rail/Road transportation and airlift are not mutually exclusive options but both are part of the plan.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 15 Sep 2013 14:01

NRao wrote:{Have not read the other posts.}

pl do.

1) I think air mobility is not as vulnerable because they should use helos. ?????

don't understand your point because of your ???. if you are saying road/rail nodes are 'more' vulnerable (as you did in your last post) then please note those targettable nodes will be heavilly defended too with extensive AD network. if anyone wants to take down those nodes will take heavy losses in terms of aircrafts, manpower etc because of the AD network and the swarms of fighters they will have to contend with before accomplishing the mission. it applies to both IAF and PLAAF. if at all as i noted before, China is more vulnerable on that count as the terrain is more conducive for the IAF to target (inspite of the losses) than India as the terrain here is all mountainous territory - targetting becoming that much more difficult. besides by taking off from plains IAF gets added adv of higher payload on the aircrafts. still China went ahead because it is cost effective and defendable. India could have done it too but did not because of the defensive approach adopted for decades by both IA/MOD.

2) I am assuming we are talking about using helos to port a particular type of artillery across a terrain

even for M777 the rail/road is the optimum solution. but since we never created any infra we are left with 'only' the 'air mobility' option.

3) I am comparing that particular scenario to the one based on rail/road. A 1-1 comparison

there is no safe option in any war. all are vulnerable which is why heavy defence of vunerable points (wrt rail/road) are built into the war strategy.

4) As far as why China created that system: it has a dual purpose: For internal power projection in Tibet - which is their main function and then to build up against India.

force projection against unarmed monks?? fact is to attack India, China has to pass thro' Tibet!!

India centric efforts are already in place, these systems - during a conflict - if they help, then great. But China will never rely on them to get the job done

as to the bolded, i am actually surprised you say it!!

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 15 Sep 2013 14:33

Load option example @ 20,000 ft for Chinooks

Supposed to be from a Boeing presentation - LiveFist

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 15 Sep 2013 14:42

Old report Dated: 17th Jul 2013

Cabinet committee gives go-ahead to Mountain Strike Corps - Airlift/Chinook related news

The Mountain Strike Corps - a first of its kind for the Indian forces - will have around 50,000 soldiers. Two special divisions will be backed by an airlift ability to deploy fully armed troops at short notice.

US-made transport aircraft - the C-130-J Super Hercules - and twin-rotor heavy lift helicopter - the Chinook -will be part of the corps.

The IAF and the Army are readying seven advanced landing grounds in Arunachal Pradesh for quick deployment of troops, besides a host of helipads.

The corps will be armed with specialised artillery guns - the ultra-light Howitzer - that can be lifted by the Chinook helicopter for deployment on mountain tops, besides night fighting ability and specialised vehicles.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 15 Sep 2013 14:53

Old report Dated: 17th Jul 2013

China-specific corps on table - Airlift/Chinook related news

For a mountain strike corps, the requirement of “wheels” — ground mobile platforms — would be less than a strike corps tasked for an operational area in the plains. But its aviation — mainly helicopters — component would be larger than usual. A strike corps also has elements of the air force dedicated to it.

<snip>

The army is understood to have proposed that the main airlift capability of the new corps should comprise indigenously made Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopters. But the defence establishment is also now considering buying the twin-rotor Chinook helicopters that can airlift troops as well move light howitzers underslung.

Though the Chinook helicopter, made by Boeing, and the M777 light howitzers have been selected by the air force and the army, they have not yet been contracted with all the systems.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 15 Sep 2013 16:52

abhik wrote:
abhik wrote: Yes, otherwise the chances of a long column of supply trucks getting destroyed by an enemy air attack is equally open.
There are things called SAMs. Both air transport and road transport have their vulnerabilities.

Boreas wrote:Do you realize what you said doesn't make any sense? For example - In 71' war Pakistan attacked India. Did -
a. army waiting to start troop movement till Pakistan dropped first bomb or
b. troops and machines were already deployed to counter the enemy? Take a guess.
There was a long run up to 71. What about 47, 65 and 99?

Are you implying that Pakistan or China can amass there troops on the border without Indian Army noticing it? or are you implying that Indian Army will know that enemy is moving troops but won't take any counter-action?

If answer is no than before the break of war both sides will have there majority of resources placed and ready at the border. That is what I said. If answer for above question is yes.. than you are wasting peoples time.

PS - Just FYI Kargil wasn't a war fought between two countries.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 15 Sep 2013 17:13

if chinook fulfills all requirements compared to bigger helos(mi26,ch53k) even exceeds them then what causes americans to invest in ch53k?

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Sep 2013 17:47

Boreas wrote:Are you implying that Pakistan or China can amass there troops on the border without Indian Army noticing it? or are you implying that Indian Army will know that enemy is moving troops but won't take any counter-action?

That is has happened before multiple times for whatever reason. Most disastrously in 1962.

If answer is no than before the break of war both sides will have there majority of resources placed and ready at the border. That is what I said. If answer for above question is yes.. than you are wasting peoples time.

PS - Just FYI Kargil wasn't a war fought between two countries.

Guess the Indian Forces were battling freedom fighters onlee.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Sep 2013 18:16

pankajs wrote:Load option example @ 20,000 ft for Chinooks

Supposed to be from a Boeing presentation - LiveFist

Hi-res Link to the same. So Chinook is advertized to carry 2600lb(1200kg) at 20,000 ft. Dhruv Mk3, about a quarter the size of the Chinook, has shown 600kg at 21,000ft.

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 15 Sep 2013 18:26

Baldev wrote:if chinook fulfills all requirements compared to bigger helos(mi26,ch53k) even exceeds them then what causes americans to invest in ch53k?

The CH-53K is meant for the US marines, and designed to be deployed from carriers and amphibious vessels. The Chinook is used by the US Army, although AFAIK the UK uses it from its ships.

Boreas · Post by **Boreas** » 15 Sep 2013 21:09

abhik wrote:
Boreas wrote:Are you implying that Pakistan or China can amass there troops on the border without Indian Army noticing it? or are you implying that Indian Army will know that enemy is moving troops but won't take any counter-action?
That is has happened before multiple times for whatever reason. Most disastrously in 1962.

Shall I assume that you are not aware of Indian space program, launch of military satellites and induction of long endurance UAV's in army and air force. Probably you can start by reading about them and there usage in military surveillance. This is not 1962 or as things stand even 1999.

abhik wrote:
If answer is no than before the break of war both sides will have there majority of resources placed and ready at the border. That is what I said. If answer for above question is yes.. than you are wasting peoples time.

PS - Just FYI Kargil wasn't a war fought between two countries.
Guess the Indian Forces were battling freedom fighters onlee.

Ok which country was India fighting? Vajpayeeji must have personally told you because he forget to tell the rest of the country.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 16 Sep 2013 06:24

His immortal words in that speech:

Par tum kya jaano Azaadi kya hoti hai? Par tum kya jaano Azaadi kya hoti hai? Tumhe muft mein mili aur keemat, kimat na gayi chukai...angrezo ke bal par do tukde paaye hain, ma ko khandit karte tumko laaj na aai?!

(What do you know about the cost of Freedom? What do you know about the cost of Freedom? You, who have got it free without paying its cost. Who got handouts from the strength of the British, dont you feel ashamed for breaking your mother?

Only one country comes to mind saar

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 16 Sep 2013 10:51

Singha wrote:I think the older CH53 were air portable either in the C17 or C5. a bunch of them were flown into Hyderabad for Pres Bush visit when he visited some pumpkin farm. the C5 takes it for sure http://www.africom.mil/Image/751/High/0 ... 217-105x70

from the same main link -

Air Force Galaxy ferries Marine Super Stallion

CH 53E/C5 combo!!