Talk:Sikorsky MH-53

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Rotorcraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.


The article has no mention of when this was commissioned, or when it started operating. --mboverload@ 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Started Operating in 1967 [1] Thegreene2010 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is mentioned in HH-53B section under Development, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Super Jollies[edit]

Recently, an editor has been adding a link in CH-53 Sea Stallion to Jolly Green Giant, basically a brief summary of the food brand, along with a series of DAB links. THis reminded me that I have intended to expand coverage of the JGG and SJGG in the past. As such, I have added info from Greg Goebel's PD site into this article. Rather than adding the material to the Sea Stallion page, I added it here, as the HH-53H Pave Lows were all converted from HH-53B and C models. I dumped the info with very little editing. Greg's style often unencyclopedic, so some of it will need to be rewritten. I have cited the material, even thought the usual practice on WIki is not to footnote PD references. However, I like to know where info comes from, and believe it helpful to readers also. Feel free to rewrite the dumped text were needed. - BillCJ 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

With the addition of the new material, the article ought to be renamed. However, that won't be easy! HH-53 "Super Jolly Green Giant"/MH-53 Pave Low seems a just bit LONG to me :) Sikorsky HH-53, Sikorsky MH-53, Sikorsky HH/MH-53, Sikorsky HH-53/MH-53, and Sikorsky HH-53 and MH-53 are also possible. - BillCJ 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say I disagree. The MH-53 is nothing like the HH-53 except its most basic components. It deserves its own article, even if it is a bit short. BQZip01 talk 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They are the same airframe - literally. Almost all H/J/Ms were rebuuilt from B/Cs, according to what I have found so far. They have a shared history, and are best covered together. Might be different if they were new-builds, but they aren't. As the SJGG wasn't covered anywhere else in detail, this can be considered a starting point. I won't object if there's a consnesus to split them up though. - BillCJ 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see both sides. For instance, I can see keeping them together to show the evolution of the airframe, an aspect that shouldn't be overlooked. On the other hand, there is precedence for splitting them...for instance, we have articles on some of the more obscure XC-135 variants, some of which were rebuilt from KC-135 airframes, or XC-137s, which were rebuilt from 707s. I guess this waffling between the two options isn't much help...sorry! Akradecki 23:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, one is used for special operations, the other is used for rescue. The AC-130 and MC-130 are both built from the same airframe (some are even built from successive numbered tails), but they are both separate from the C-130 page due to their differing missions and internal differences. Same goes with the C-135 and the various RC-135 airframes. In short, the HH-53 and MH-53 articles should be separate. If vandalism is a problem, then the user should be blocked temporarily.BQZip01 talk 03:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, it wasn't vandalism, as he was linking to the DAB item on the HH-3 and HH-53 on that page. It just isn't an appropriate link. - BillCJ 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by most basic components, I mean the airframe, engines, wheels, etc. BQZip01 talk 03:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
BQZip01, what is your reference for the differences? Greg Goebel's article (article's reference) gives a very convincing rundown of the variants. DODI 4120.15L (2004) also says that the MH-53J is an, "HH-53C modified to include enhanced Pave Low III and other modifications. Used for multiple missions." That would mean that despite its series designation of "J", it is still a Sikorsky S-65 (Sea Stallion) rather than an S-80 (Super Sea Stallion). Same goes for the MH-53M Pave Low IV, "MH-53J modified for special operations missions to include enhanced Pave Low III, Integrated Defensive Avionics System/Multi-mission Advanced Tactical Terminal, and other modifications." The MH-53 has replaced the HH-53 for CSAR but also performs other missions. --Born2flie 03:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As if to make the point, here is a story of a rescue prosecuted by an MH-60G and two MH-53Js during Operation Allied Force. --Born2flie 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On most basic components - Gotcha! Your points on the same airframe having different articles is a good one, but there are many articles that lump all the variants together also. THe H-3 Sea King currently covers all Sikorsky/Mitsubishi/Agusta-built variants, including the HH-3 Jolly Green GIant. (I am working on an article for the S-61R variant, which in cludes the HH-3 JGG and the HH-3F Pelican, but it still needs a lot of work at User:BillCJ/Test Article 3.)

THe dividing line in what variants get their own articles is usually not wheter they deserve one (for whatever reason - notability, role, modifications, etc.) but whether there is enough content to support a separate page, and to have a Good Article. At this point, the content isn't here to split the pages. In the future, there will probably be, esp pics, but we don't have those as yet. I felt it was time to add info on the SJGG, esp gven the user's good-faith attempt to define Jolly Green GIant, and I felt this page is the best home for the time being. The alternative is to place the info on the CH-53 Sea Stallion page with the USMC, Luftwaffe, and IAF birds, where the roles are even more different than here (assualt transport/COD, anti-mine). Anyway, I think an old USAF helicopter would be more comfortable with its younger derivative which serves in the same service, for however long it's here. - BillCJ 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PAVE LOW[edit]

In my opinion, there is something missing that should be mentioned in this article:

PAVE LOW is the acronym for Phased Array Vertical Emission/ Low Object Warning.

Uh, I somehow doubt that, but if you have a verifiable source, then by all means post it here, and we'll check it out. - BillCJ 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My source is page 149 of the book "Air Commandos" by Hartmut Schauer. Dunno if the things written in there are true (it's a German book)...

There should absolutely be some sort of source detailing the name history of the Pave Low. I have searched the internet and this site and have come up with nothing! That should be among the first things discussed in this article! --Frenk Melk! 19:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have always understood it, PAVE LOW is a code name that does not stand for anything. This site has some details about the use of codenames, and PAVE is listed as being assigned to the USAF. At this point, the page is still a work in progress, so there is no break-down of the second words used, such as LOW. - BillCJ 20:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see! So it is like the "Sea" prefix of the Navy's helicopters? That makes sense, since there are more helicopters carrying "Pave" in their names. (the HH-60 Pavehawk for example)

PAVE is a USAF code-name prefix. It was retroactively turned into an acronym by Ratheon when it trademarked "Paveway." Otherwise, it has no meaning. Generally speaking, PAVE-prefix programs are focused on electronic sensor/special mission developments:

Comment by Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter Sighting[edit]

Was that a Pave Low in Resident Evil? I saw a helicopter that looks like a Pave Low in Resident Evil Extinction.(TougHHead 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC))TougHHead

It's a minor appearance, so it really doesn't matter. We don't list every appearance of an aircraft, just the notable appearances, as explained in the various disclaimers you've been editing. Aircraft articles are about the aircraft, not films, games, toys, TV, etc. Try to focus on making the substance of the articles better, not adding minor extras. - BillCJ 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

An HH-53 "Super Jolly Green Giant" makes a prominent appearance in Airport 1975, mounting an air to air pilot transfer to a striken Boeing 747 after a small plane slams into the flight deck, ripping a hole over the co-pilot's seat. Extensive footage shows the HH-53 lowering stuntman Joe Canutt via cable in front of the 747 in flight (flaps down, and just above stall speed), placing the stuntman mere feet in front of the nose of the jumbo jet.

Is this notable?(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Formatting problems[edit]

the "converta" function is having problems on his page but I've never seen it in my life, someone who know what they are doing should fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Not sure what the problem was. I switched them to the convert template. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Replacement section[edit]

How about an addition of the replacement aircraft the V-22 Osprey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavelow235 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The main thing for this article is when they plan to retire them. That and the its replacement would need a reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that true? My understanding is that the Air Force is only buying a small number of Ospreys. It doesn't sound like this will be enough to replace the MH-53 fleet. --rogerd (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The numbers are comparable. The USAF bought 40 or so HH/MH-53s. They are buying 50 CV-22s to replace some or all of them.[2] -Fnlayson (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I see. I didn't realize they were getting so many, 10 more than they have MH-53's. (I could make some remark about how the Ospreys crash so much they need spares, but I won't. Oops, I guess I just did.) The V-22 article says that the DOD is getting 458 total, but does not break it out between the services. I assumed that the Marines were getting almost all of them. --rogerd (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Air Force is also using them to replace the MH-60Gs, and some of the older MC-130s. (the E models are ancient) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed move[edit]

This article was just moved from Sikorsky MH-53 to Sikorsky HH-53, based on HH-53 being more common. I don't think that's true. Also, almost all HH-53s (minus losses) were converted to MH-53Js and some to MH-53Ms. I think we should get agreement on the best name and rename to that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I requested it. I thinks it's a more comprehensive name thst includes the SJGG, but I'm fine with it going bact to Sikorsky MH-53, if that's the consensus. I'd rather have both HH and MH in the title, but those aren't usually used. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The name has been changed a couple times lately. I just want to get settle on something and have it on record to prevent future repeats. It's not going to matter much either way to me. What's SJGG; DoD popular name?? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Super Jolly Green Giant. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought it looked familiar, duh. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is a citation for the popular culture section. I do not know how to add it. CashDude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Appearance in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2[edit]

I'm not sure what the protocol on this is so I'm discussing to be safe. Does an appearance in a video game count as a "significant" thing? As far as I am concerned (from a gamer's POV), the Pave Low appeared in the Favela stage of the Single-Player Campaign, and also prominently features in Multiplayer mode as a reward item. By "prominently" I mean you can see it at really low altitudes and as long as the bloody thing isn't on your side you're really screwed, but that's really opinionated ain't it?! Pasonia (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That sort of thing is part of Aircraft_in_fiction#Sikorsky_MH-53 if you have a reliable reference it could be added to that article. Perhaps you need to make the point on that articles talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Due to the recent spate of similar entry as above by anon IPs, the article is now semi-protected from further unhelpful edits. The regular editors on WP:MILITARY will be watching this article like a hawk, so don't think that we won't revert any such pranks, or if need be, report the offender to WP:AIV. --Dave 1185 16:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

not retired![edit]

These were used in the Bin Laden assault

Please fix the article.

Richmondian (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not without Reliable sources that say that MH-53s were used in the raid. Most sources out there say Chinooks or MH-60s from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) were used. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
CBC is saying "The raid began within hours of that final meeting. It involved four U.S. Black Hawk helicopters, about two dozen troops and took about 40 minutes from start to finish." - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Line Drawings[edit]

The drawings are useful, but the overhead view is inaccurate: the rotor blades should be equally spaced angularly, and they are not! (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sea Dragon[edit]

How does this article state nothing about the Sea Dragon operated by the Navy? I searched for MH-53 and the Pave cam up? How is that possible? I always new the MH-53 to be the anti-sub version. Please add some info about the Navy's version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Sea Dragon is covered at Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You beat me to this, thanks. The MH-53E Sea Dragon is a naval mine sweeping version of CH-53E Super Stallion. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote at the top as MH-53 redirects here. That should clear up any further confusion. - BilCat (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Great idea! - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the perfect situation for a hatnote, as the MH-53E is directly unrelated to the MH-53 Pave Lows, and thus shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Thanks to the IP for pointing it out. I guess we were just to close to the subject to realize there might be someone looking for the other MH-53! - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)