abracadabra11
Member
Last I saw, the 60S OAMCM is less than ideal...
-
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
AMCM a la MH-53E vs OAMCM a la MH-60S
- Thread starter abracadabra11
- Start date
AMCM overall is a tough nut to crack, regardless of platform.
Nonetheless, full speed ahead. Based on the R&D, huge sums of capital and investment, there will be some kind of H60S AMCM.
Total threadjack here...
But fuck 60S OAMCM. Seriously. We're into the "throwing good money after bad" part of this pet project with nothing to show for it except repeated trips between DT and OT, laughably low service times for dynamic components once you do start towing, and half of the full system just not even there.
At this point I'm wondering if there's any length that the Navy *won't* go to to make OAMCM in the 60S "work" - and if there's a defined point at which the powers that be will say "you know, we gave it our best shot - it's just the wrong platform for the job."
Obviously you haven't been in the Navy long. This is textbook across the board. We dumped all our eggs in one basket for better or worse. Who cares if we waste all of our funding on crap that doesn't actually work and nevermind that we could have gotten better equipment that matches the actual job requirements.
Unfortunately we are in too far now.
Similar to the Osprey. Love it or hate it, how many other or better platforms could the MC have purchased for the R&D and time spent on it?
I would tend to agree, except we have a platform that already does that job (53's). Plus, I've heard how it significantly degrades the life of dynamic parts on the 60S when doing the OAMCM mission.
53s do AMCM, not OAMCM.
Oh I agree with that 100% There was a bit of sarcasm in my post.
I think the term OAMCM will eventually go away. The 60 systems are no longer "organic" to anything. Those conops have changed about a dozen times in recent times. I think it's a term used right now to discriminate between 53 and 60 systems.
Our eggs are definitely in this basket especially with LCS. I think RAMICS, ALMDS, and AMNS will work fine in the 60 the problem is anything with tension and CSTRS. I'd like to see the Q-20 find its way to the 53. I also heard that the Japanese are conducting tow testing with the EH-101.
This thread is an acronym soup.
OAMCM=Organic Aerial Mine Counter Measures ?
RAMICS?
ALMDS?
AMNS?
It's like a whole foreign helo-language. [
]
OAMCM=Organic Aerial Mine Counter Measures ?
RAMICS?
ALMDS?
AMNS?
It's like a whole foreign helo-language. [
]
RAMICS = Rapid Airborne Mine Clearing System. Basically a bushmaster on a pintle mount. Which breaks when you fire it.
ALMDS = Airborne Laser Mine Detection System.
AMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System - basically a mini-torpedo that is deployed, flies through the water to the mine, then neutralizes it with a charge.
ALMDS = Airborne Laser Mine Detection System.
AMNS = Airborne Mine Neutralization System - basically a mini-torpedo that is deployed, flies through the water to the mine, then neutralizes it with a charge.
CSTRS - Carriage, Stream, Tow, and Recovery System (CSTRS). You can thank Congressmen Murtha for bringing home the bacon to a company that new nothing about helicopters. I heard at one point they told the CT pilots the reason it wasn't working is that the helicopter wasn't being hovered level.