Talk:MH-53 Pave Low

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Date

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

[edit] Super Jollies

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)

[edit] PAVE LOW

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)

[edit] Helicopter Sighting

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))

[edit] Formatting problems

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 24.160.201.84 (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)

[edit] Replacement section

How about an addition of the replacement aircraft the V-22 Osprey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavelow235 (talk • contribs) 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.[1] -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)