Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I mean the boat is located 90 minutes from Cairo. It’s not easy but Cairo has skyscrapers and a construction industry.

Of course there is the “what is physically possible” and “what is politically doable” and there maybe a bit of a gulf there.




I think there's a canal there, actually.


There once was a canal there...now Evergreen Gulf. Or Gulf of Evergreen perhaps.


I mean, heavy-lifting choppers are something that I'd also expect the average NATO or (former) Warsaw Pact nation to have, and it's arguably in their best interests to make sure a key shipping route is operational (and in Egypt's best interests to accept any help possible).

Hell, Israel's close by, and I'm pretty sure they've got this sort of airpower in droves and are probably pretty heavily reliant on the Suez Canal; maybe instead of fighting with Egypt the Israelis could, say, pitch in and foster some good will? And further, it'll make up for the time when fighting between the two countries caused a Suez Canal blockage ;)


I am afraid you underestimate the weight of those TEUs and overestimate the capabilities of the Sikorsky CH-53 (which is what Israel has). That chopper has a max payload of 32000 lbs and a 40ft TEU has a max gross weight of 67500 lbs. Maybe you get lucky... but you'd need a lot of luck.

Also, if they find this is feasible, you don't necessarily need Israel to get a few Sikorsky choppers there, at least the Incirlik air base must have some and the Sikorsky definitely has the operational range to cross over there on its own, Iran certainly has some, the Eisenhower last I checked a few weeks ago was near Italy and surely that group has at least a few Sea Dragons...


> That chopper has a max payload of 32000 lbs and a 40ft TEU has a max gross weight of 67500 lbs. Maybe you get lucky... but you'd need a lot of luck.

1. This assumes that the containers are actually loaded to their maximum gross weight. That doesn't seem likely; you're much more likely to run out of volume first - even if you're deliberately "optimizing" for as much weight in those containers as possible.

1a. This assumes that the heavy containers are at the top rather than the bottom, which would be backwards from how containers are supposed to be stacked (or even allowed to be stacked per your average safety guidelines around center of mass, stack limits, etc.).

2. This assumes that multiple helicopters can't work in tandem (which they can, from what I understand).

So yeah, even if there are some containers that are too heavy to safely unload via helicopter, I strongly suspect that quite a few - most, probably - of those containers could be readily unloaded. And further, even if that ain't enough to get the ship moving again, it's at least a good start.

> the Eisenhower last I checked a few weeks ago was near Italy and surely that group has at least a few Sea Dragons...

Even better.


> 2. This assumes that multiple helicopters can't work in tandem (which they can, from what I understand).

Do you mean two helicopters carrying a single slung load? That is not practised anywhere.

Tandem loads in military terms refer to a single helicopter carrying two slung loads, one in front of the other.

As far as I know, none of the helicopters mentioned above are rated for sling operations with 40ft containers.


> As far as I know, none of the helicopters mentioned above are rated for sling operations with 40ft containers.

There was a sea basing study and that only looked at 20ft containers and dismissed even a theoretical upgraded CH-53X (although of course the study was looking at much longer range than just lifting it and putting it back down) but again, that was just 20ft, these 40ft ones are just too heavy for choppers.

A writeup https://www.aerotime.aero/27542-Could-helicopters-solve-the-... if anything, the Royal Jordanian Air Force operates two Mi-26s but

> For many containers, using helicopters would probably mean at least partially unloading their cargo, which is a difficult and time-consuming endeavor. The process of removing containers by helicopters would be even more difficult, dangerous, and time-consuming, so it is very, very unlikely we will see it implemented unless the situation gets really desperate.


TEU means Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit and is a measure of container capacity. A 40-foot container is 2 TEUs.


I mean, physical existence of a chopper vs its viability for this specific operation are very different things. Think of it this way: you may have a car, and you may even be familiar with installing and maneuvering a standard size tow. But that doesn't mean that I can just ask you out of the blue to come over and tow a prefab house that you've never handled before, then ask you to do it again a dozen times over (and on the double), and expect everything to go peachy.


Right, but in this context we're talking about countries with helicopters specifically intended to haul heavy things like shipping containers (and tanks, and trucks, and military base prefabs, and stuff). Keeping the analogy, it's like if you bought a Ford F-650 and your neighbors need help pulling some broken down semi (that's blocking the whole road) off the street in front of their house. And maybe you and your neighbor ain't on the best of terms, but you decide to at least offer to help anyway, because you need to use that street, too, and what was the point of buying that big pickup truck if you ain't gonna do truck stuff?

In this case, you're Israel, your neighbor's Egypt, the street is the Suez Canal, the semi is a giant container ship, and your F-650 is about 23 CH-53-derived heavy-lifting helicopters.


But do they actually routinely haul shipping containers packed to the brim? And continuously for days on end? There are various people in this thread saying that they can't, either because the specs are not up to par or because the stress risks rapid/early mechanical failure.

Also, while we're at it w/ terrible analogies, consider that many people (including the CEO of the company that got called to clean up this mess) are saying this is going to take weeks. The more accurate analogy is that your F-650 is a dozen tugboats, the truck is not blocking the road, but instead sunk in a marsh an hour away from town (the suez sand bank), loaded w/ 10,000 50lb lead anvils (the containers) and all the manpower you are able to summon in order to move those anvils are a dozen highly paid software engineers (the choppers) who may or may not be inclined to take a week off to help you move the anvils off the truck, and who may or may not be actually physically capable of helping even if they wanted to spend their week hauling hundreds of 50lb anvils by hand. Oh, and you can't just drop anvils in the marsh either, even by accident, due to the risk of poisoning the water supply for the town. And you can't rule out the risk of one of the software engineers tripping and drowning. And you're not even sure your F-650 can pull the truck out without tumbling it on its side or yanking off the front axle even if you empty it out completely.


Average expected teu is 30k lbs on a ship. A 20ft container is already close to the redline of these helicopters on the average. You cant max these vehicles for more than an hour or so without needing repairs. A 40ft container cant even be considered. Nearly all containers are packed to the brim to ink out max goods shipped. The whole chopper idea is just a movie fantasy for this. Real life is not pleasant to armchair theory.


> Average expected teu is 30k lbs on a ship

Yeah, average. That doesn't mean that every container - or even most containers - are loaded to that weight per TEU. Indeed, it's highly likely that they're not; the heavy containers are going to be toward the bottom, and the lighter containers are going to be toward the top. And there are probably a lot more light containers than heavy ones, because...

> Nearly all containers are packed to the brim

Volumetrically, yes. Not necessarily in terms of weight. Indeed, unless you're shipping gold ingots or something, "max goods shipped" necessarily means that you're more likely to run into volumetric limits first.

Not to mention that the max container weight in practice is usually a fair bit lower than the ISO spec, since those containers have to get to their destination - which means traveling on roads and railways with their own weight limits (both for the whole vehicle and per-axle), and on vehicles that themselves are part of that limit (and themselves have limits of their own). And further, a container can only have so much weight stacked on top of it.

> Real life is not pleasant to armchair theory.

Indeed it is not, which is why when it comes to the containers themselves I'm speaking from experience as a professional in the supply chain / logistics field :)

(But yes, admittedly my knowledge on military helicopters is less substantial, so if there's someone who's not an armchair theorist on that topic who wants to chime in, that'd be most welcome)


FYI, it is in fact not necessary to start a comment with "I mean".


I mean, regardless of necessity it ain't like it hinders parsing of the comment, FYI.


Nor “FYI”.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: