First MH-60R squadron is established!

[Bevo16]

Sadly that will probably never happen. When was the last time the Navy really went overland to do a CSAR mission? Long time. When was the last time we employed weapons overland? The air ambulance thing is pretty tame compared with what the army and air force helos do. I think we got extremely hamstringed in that department with the range.

When was the last time a Navy Helicopter fired overland? I don't know, yesterday? Ever hear of HSC-85? Those guys have been hot and heavy for the last 4 years in Iraq. I know that HS-4 sent hot lead downrange on their 05/06 deployment. HS-8 had several hundred hours of green ink overland in 05. Just because your don't know about it does not mean that it is not going on.

We are the last HS squadron doing ASW, so I can testify to what happens when a contact shows up. .

Really? Wow. You might want to break that happy news to HS-2, HS-4, HS-6 and all of the East Coast bubbas as well. They are hauling all that sonar gear around for nothing! Being from HS-14 you can testify as to what happens when a contact shows up 2 miles from your unit, but you need to check the rest of your facts.

 

[bobbybrock]

The Block 3 Sierra is a strike platform. Fully loaded it can carry 8 hellfire and 4 crew served machine guns (mix of .50 cal, 7.62 mini-gun, and M-240). That is more firepower than a multi-role package Apache. Get used to the idea of Navy Helicopter gunships. We are going to bring a lot to the fight.

Any questions, I'll be here all week.

I'm a little confused as to what role navy helos will play overland. Are these units going to supplement the Marine and Army attack guys kind of like the Navy Dustoff guys have in Kuwait.
I flew many a mission in Iraq with 64 support and believe me the Long Bow can bring on some big hurt. The 160th DAP bring a lot to the fight as well. So I'm curious as to what the block 3 brings to the fight that the aforementioned platforms can't.

 

[Bevo16]

Calm down there, Skippy. Lay off the Merlin cool-aid. Rotorhead is correct -- if I tried to take the block 3 out to the desert, I would have it sent home. The software needs a lot of development to make it functional for overland missions.

Funny, there are three of them out in the desert right now and none of them have been sent back. I had better call those guys and warn them that their helos are not ready for the missions they are flying.

 

[1rotorhead]

Big difference between flying medevac in a permissive environment and the middle of bagdad. If I had my choice right now, i'd still take the HH. still too many issues with the S.

 

[Bevo16]

I'm a little confused as to what role navy helos will play overland. Are these units going to supplement the Marine and Army attack guys kind of like the Navy Dustoff guys have in Kuwait.
I flew many a mission in Iraq with 64 support and believe me the Long Bow can bring on some big hurt. The 160th DAP bring a lot to the fight as well. So I'm curious as to what the block 3 brings to the fight that the aforementioned platforms can't.

It's not just overland missions. A helo with 8 hellfire and 2 heavy machine guns will be a big help if the FAC/FAIC threat ever gets hot in everyone's favorite part of the world. If an OPLAT ever came under threat of attack, it would be a great helo to have in the area.

I don't think that anyone is talking about sending a flight of Navy Helicopters up against a division of Iranian tanks. That's not our job. We are not planning on replacing the Army or Marines, but we have been doing a lot of patrols/ISR duty in brown water and along the Iranian border. The SIII is better platform to deal with what you may come in contact with.

We are not talking about wholesale changes in operational philosophy, just a better platform to do the jobs that we already have. It is also a more flexible platform to help out if requested.

 

[hscs]

Bevo, you guys just transitioned, so I know that you are all excited about it. I have actually tried to go back and use the systems to plan and execute a mission on the 60S, as I would in an HH. The HH beats the 60S hands down. Are there things that I like in the 60S, yes -- but right now, it still needs tweaking before it can be sent into the big game.

As was mentioned earlier, there is a huge difference from working tough towns in Iraq, as opposed to the Udari range. I don't want to knock the Air Ambulance guys, but their tempo is not comparable to other units up north. It is the tempo, the planning systems, and the night after night use of the systems in a heavy jamming environment that would get the aircraft sent home.

 

[bert]

Yes, ASE gear is being bought with the R - I don't know what the HH currently has so I don't know how it compares.

Personally, I prefer the Army's Common Cockpit Arch to the Navy's, but having said that I think sometimes people have poor memories for some of the older crud we were flying not so long ago. The cockpit is by no means perfect, but it isn't a disaster either (though the map is garbage). Since I have 0 hours in the HH so I won't compare it to the S. You could talk to HSC-3's Training O about the block 3 and B kit - he is an HCS-5 guy with multiple deployments and could give a fair comparison.

While I admire the enthusiasm some folks are showing on this topic, I really do think you ought to mix the occasional beer in with your kool-aid. Do I think that the Navy's helos will do more overland missions in the next 15 years than the last 15? Probably. Are you all going to be trained up and executing like the -160 guys? Nope - not even close.

Finally, I would add that the R has its own structural issues so those need to be addressed in both airframes.

 

[Gatordev]

Yes, ASE gear is being bought with the R - I don't know what the HH currently has so I don't know how it compares.

I guess what I was asking was is it any improved from the Bravo's ASE, which everyone loves to point out is not all that helpful in the current environment.

 

[Pags]

Finally, I would add that the R has its own structural issues so those need to be addressed in both airframes.

The 60S is not the first (nor apparently the last) 60 airframe to have cracks...B, H, and L to name a few all had crack issues.

 

[MasterBates]

Yeah, but the 60B's cracks were not as bad, and came later in life. Much later.

 

[lowflier03]

@ lowflier: You need to open your eyes a bit and get out of the HS CSAR only mentality. CSAR isn't going win the long war -- SOF support will. A guy that is properly trained in SOF support can switch easily over to CSAR. A CSAR guy can't switch to SOF support without training.

I dont know exactly what you are referring to with this comment. We dont only do CSAR, however one of the big issues is that the new helos dont have the legs to do a real CSAR or NSW/SOF role. Unless there is a lily pad or FARP very close, the new platforms cant go very far on a bag of gas. Sure the Sierra can add the internal tanks, but then you lose the cabin space. I think with the design concessions that were made, we set ourselves on the outside of these roles. The Army has better legs and is in theater already, the AF has better legs along with the ability to in flight refuel. I think we could have done much better with an entirely new airframe, or a design closer to the Army's DAP. Right now we are setting ourselves up to be a good HVBSS platform, and thats about it.

With the weight of the Romeo I can see having to switch to the German tactics where one helo dips and the other has to be a weapons truck. I dont see them doing dip to dip with a full bag and weapons on board.

Really? Wow. You might want to break that happy news to HS-2, HS-4, HS-6 and all of the East Coast bubbas as well. They are hauling all that sonar gear around for nothing! Being from HS-14 you can testify as to what happens when a contact shows up 2 miles from your unit, but you need to check the rest of your facts.

Im pretty sure that everyone here would agree that 85 is not the norm. At least as far as fleet squadrons go. Do you see any HS or HSC squadrons doing that? No. And the stuff that is done by the squadrons is, as said before, extremely tame compared to what the Army and AF helo units do.

As for the ASW comment. Everyone that I know, have talked to, or flown with from those squadrons likes to brag about how they truck out all their helos and never have to do ASW once they hit the boat. Sure seems to me like the rest of the squadrons like to think that ASW is a dead mission. And I dont count AUTEC as real world ASW.

 

[hscs]

First of all folks -- HSC-85 is not in the desert, another squadron is.

Lowflier -- The issue is that the entire strike syllabus is designed primarily for CSAR, not NSW overland missions. The mission planning is much different and much more complicated. Even the NSW cards in the NSW syllabus drive towards a CSAR mission with NSW support. I don't really see the HS community as being able to plan a long range mission to infil/exfil, fly the route, find an LZ without any markings, and be on the deck within 30 sec of planned TOT. They just don't train to that. With some folks filtering back into the HS community, this can be changed. In fact, we should focus more on NSW type missions -- as those are the ones that are more likely to happen while deployed (a la HS-5).

You need to wander around a 60S and then the Army birds or just read some literature about the 60S -- it is a converted 60L. I don't understand how an Army 60L or an AF 60G (which is just like a 60L) is different than a navy modified 60L. As for the gas, if you do the math -- you can get 2.4k in the mains plus two 1.3k aux tanks for around 5.0k. Pretty good if you ask me. The tanks that the Navy bought are actually better than the Army/AF Robby tanks -- they are more rectangular than cube-like. The cabin space is actually pretty good with both tanks. With some cockpit improvements, I would take our bird over a 60G/L/K. If you want more gas, be my guest -- but 5.0k is a long time to sit for me.

 

[busdriver]

Tailwheel

Why did the Navy choose to go with the aft tail-wheel placement on the 60S? Does the Navy style placement adversely affect slope/landing limits?

 

[lowflier03]

Well the airframe might be the same, but it would be nice to have the IFR, a real moving map, upgraded engines, as well as terrain following radar. As for the tailwheel placement. Some people worry about doing low altitude flares/quick stops and smacking the tail into the ground with the Navy tailwheel placement. Which seems stupid to me because we train to do maneuvers in the Hotel just fine, and we have been operating both Foxtrots and Hotels in the TERF environment for awhile now.

 

[squorch2]

Why did the Navy choose to go with the aft tail-wheel placement on the 60S? Does the Navy style placement adversely affect slope/landing limits?

As stated previously, it's a Navy head with a 60L body, hence the tailwheel placement. The S can land on all Navy combatants.