-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
60 Series helos and landing on ships in tight confines
- Thread starter Pags
- Start date
News to me. Was it a traction issue or was it the actual drive mechanism getting wet that caused your problems?
This thread started out in the turboprop CAS thread. (threadjack)
A poster mentioned that the A-10 would be great for the Marine Corps and it should be modified to operate from aircraft carriers.
My point was that taking an aircraft no designed for shipboard operations and operating it from a ship will present some problems.
The MH-60S was the example I used since the original airframes purchased by the Navy started life as Army blackhawk airframes that were cancelled mid-production to shift money to the Commanche program. Sikorsky made a deal for the Navy on those airframes, hence the Army tailwheel.
Modifying the original MH-60S helos with the smaller foot print of all the other Navy H-60's was going to cost about an extra $1 million per airframe due to the internal structure rework required for the shorter tailwheel.
Deploying the MH-60S on CRU/DES presents challenges to the fleet, specifically getting the aircraft in and out of hangars. There's challenges needed to be overcome. For those that weren't around in the 90's but both the 60B and 60F/H prohibited hand movement of the aircraft at sea, so putting the MH-60S on small-boys became a big issue when it first deployed to the fleet.
Additionally as mentioned, the fit of an H-60 in the hangar of a CRU/DES is pretty tight, so there is little room for error.
Thus my point. If you buy an aircraft that was not designed for operations from a ship, there will be challenges to operations of that aircraft vice an airframe designed from the ground up to be a Naval aircraft.
As for the real pilots not needing RAST (I realize it was sarcasm, so please don't take this as a shot to you RH04) I've done CV/CVN deployments, a USNS deployment, and a couple of SHAREMs on CGs and DDs and I have to say that a Freedeck landing is the most difficult ship landing.
The deck of a small boy will move a lot more than any big-deck and with a Freedeck you have only a few square feet to land and still have the probe in the trap.
I'll hand it to the LAMPS guys that their landings are far more challengeing than any ship that HS/HSC routinely deploys on and with that being said I must go wash my mouth out with soap for having complimented the LAMPS community!
Dunno why, but the damn thing wouldn't turn on at all. Good charge on the batteries but just wouldn't move. The ASs we had were stumped. I was a late addition to the det - none of whom had deployed to a ship before (!) - and no one had thought to practice manual moves in case the cart malfunctioned. The push/pull handles were found at the bottom of a triwall and it was kind of a shit show all around, but we got the bird out and spotted. Totally jackknifed the tailwheel though - that note in NATOPS is no joke.
Don't joke about such nonsense! I don't want, nor do I need a RAST.
For ONCE I'll speak from actual experience: MH-60S does FINE on basically any ship in the fleet.
I've personally landed on: flt I/II DDG, FFG, CG, LSD, CVN and I've never had a problem, or had a "hairy" landing due to the tailwheel. So.... you're just wrong. Yeah the clearance is tighter, but if you land where you're supposed to, a la ships resume, you're good.
The point isn't landing, it's deploying. Deploying (to include getting in and out of hanger during hairy weather) is very difficult and dangerous when you have to hand-push a helo.
With the new tractor, someone still has to be on deck walking along, pulling the helo to get it into the hangar.
When you do RAST, specifically the Straightening and Traversing (S&T part of RAST) the movement of the helo is conducted by one director on deck and the LSO in the bubble.
I think there's some misconceptions as to what the RAST is actually used for in the real world. And Rotorhead, this isn't directed at your comment, as I realize it's in good fun...
While the RAST was designed to help with getting aboard, no one actually uses it for that in normal practice. Really the only reason it's used is to straighten and then move into a hangar. And for a DDG/FFG or a CG w/ two aircraft, you'll need it to mitigate the risk of bumping something expensive into the ship. So having a "RAST" type system (which is probably more like a "ST" system and doesn't have the RA part) on a -60S could give extra options to some higher up that may need the resource. Is it a necessity? Probably not, but if your little towing device breaks down (or evne if it is working), even Otto will benefit from having a traverse device if you go to a DDG, especially with it's flight deck, which I think could be used to hold soap box derbies on with it's slope.
EDIT: helolumpy beat me to it.
While the RAST was designed to help with getting aboard, no one actually uses it for that in normal practice. Really the only reason it's used is to straighten and then move into a hangar. And for a DDG/FFG or a CG w/ two aircraft, you'll need it to mitigate the risk of bumping something expensive into the ship. So having a "RAST" type system (which is probably more like a "ST" system and doesn't have the RA part) on a -60S could give extra options to some higher up that may need the resource. Is it a necessity? Probably not, but if your little towing device breaks down (or evne if it is working), even Otto will benefit from having a traverse device if you go to a DDG, especially with it's flight deck, which I think could be used to hold soap box derbies on with it's slope.
EDIT: helolumpy beat me to it.
Right, but keep in mind the design of the MH-60S. It WASN'T designed to det out to small boys. The folks who did that (HSL) is the new HSM. I could be wrong, but I believe HSM has RAST, so where's the problem? There was no design requirement for RAST in the S.
EDIT: Question. I've heard from HSL bubbas that even WITH the RAST, in heavy seas, there is enough "play" in the linkage to allows the helo to rock and still strike the hangar. Is that true? And if so... what the heck is the point then?
What Squorch said.
Reread my post. It's designed for securing and traverse. It was never designed for anything else. The trap is only designed to go forward and back. This is useful for a) straightening and b) putting the bird in the hangar. You have to do a) before you can do b).
Because you have an oleo shock system, plus a RAST probe designed to have play if it touches the deck, plus you have a folding tail which is secured but has play, you can get to a point where part of the helo rocks into the hangar w/ higher rolls. The warning is actually for the folded tail. It's not like the helo all of a sudden runs itself into the hangar face because the ship is rolling. It's just an issue when the trail is coming in and out of the entrance.
Funny thing, back when the B models were first hitting the fleet (first operational deployment 1985), it was the RA part of RAST that was getting all of the coverage. There were all kinds of video being shown in RR's of the White Elephant making RAST landings with the Perry-class deck rolling like crazy.
I think an important part of all the "coverage" was that the system actually worked. It's quite common that the ship side is jacked up and slightly less common that the helo's messenger cable dorks up nowadays.
Basically it boils down to ORM (a four letter word, I know). If you're taking more than 15 degree rolls (the limit on a FFG for Freedecks), do you really want two deck seaman out there who haven't done hookups all that often to go out and get wrapped up in the cable? The answer is usually no. Besides, there's always a movie to watch rather than go fly in bad weather.
Basically it boils down to ORM (a four letter word, I know). If you're taking more than 15 degree rolls (the limit on a FFG for Freedecks), do you really want two deck seaman out there who haven't done hookups all that often to go out and get wrapped up in the cable? The answer is usually no. Besides, there's always a movie to watch rather than go fly in bad weather.
While we are on the subject of "true confessions" ... it would be nice to have something that safely holds the helo to the deck that can be operated by the aircrew vice waiting on chock and chainers to come out and tie you down. We had more than a few flights on Freedom when we saw air peek under the main mounts after landing in rough seas. ** PUCKER ** I believe this capability is something the Coasties have. Is this the same thing others were referring to as "coming to a Sierra near you via the cargo hook"? I vaguely remember allusions to said device during a recent CO brief regarding community steerage, but I was still drying my eyes from the OAMCM portion of the brief and missed the details ...
I certainly get the point about autonomous transit being nice to have. I would think that more essential for two bird dets. On a single bird det, if it's too rough, why not just wait until the seas are calm enough to stuff the bird? I get the emergency launch of a stuffed bird scenario, but if the seas are too rough to move it, aren't they going to be too rough to takeoff?
And on that note, I'll revise my previous statement: Real pilots don't need RAST to LAND. Once the aircraft is on deck at flat pitch, SWOs and seas have more control over aircraft movement than the pilots do.
I certainly get the point about autonomous transit being nice to have. I would think that more essential for two bird dets. On a single bird det, if it's too rough, why not just wait until the seas are calm enough to stuff the bird? I get the emergency launch of a stuffed bird scenario, but if the seas are too rough to move it, aren't they going to be too rough to takeoff?
And on that note, I'll revise my previous statement: Real pilots don't need RAST to LAND. Once the aircraft is on deck at flat pitch, SWOs and seas have more control over aircraft movement than the pilots do.
