Rumor mill from friends in the 53 community: the navy had the chance to buy into the Kilo so Sikorsky could add the extra frame stiffening necessary to pull the sled and big navy said "no thanks". So not much hope for the 53K to be pulling a sled anytime soon.
-
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
HM community
- Thread starter balloonattack
- Start date
Rumor mill from friends in the 53 community: the navy had the chance to buy into the Kilo so Sikorsky could add the extra frame stiffening necessary to pull the sled and big navy said "no thanks". So not much hope for the 53K to be pulling a sled anytime soon.
USN has been trying to get out of the MH-53 business due to the high cost of the airframe and the squadrons. USN has been trying to get the LCS MIW mission module to take over the MCM mission but those efforts have had numerous issues on many of the systems involved to include H-60 AMCM. I used to be more current on the plan forward with MIW but I've been mostly out of that game for a few years. However, I'm fairly positive H-60 AMCM is headed to the fleet (albeit with a more reduced scope than was originally envisioned). What the future state of USN MIW capabilities will be is still "murky at best" but I can imagine the USN giving up on MIW due to the capabilities of potential adversaries.
Could be. Then someone takes a mine hit in the SoH or BAM or Sea of Japan and suddenly it's a high-priority mission with all the money again.
Oops. My last sentence was supposed to say "CANNOT IMAGINE THE USN GIVING UP ON MIW...".
Can a mod help a brother out?
I agree with you @Uncle Fester ; all it takes is one hit in the SoH or Sea Of Japan. Or one call from an adversary to Lloyds of London saying they mined a major waterway.
Your original statement is actually correct - USN does not like the MIW business. It does it begrudgingly. Some times it takes civilian leadership to tell USN to up its game in MIW.
I don't see the -53K happening. There are other ways which have been proven better.
Last edited:
whether Mil leadership keeps it limping along on their own volition or by direction I still can't imagine it going away. That said, I agree with you as to how much value USN places on MIW. The mission isn't sexy or glamorous and it's always going towards the bottom of the funding pile.
To continue to hammer it home to the OP: don't go HM.
The Navy doesn't like MIW because it requires specialized units with optimized platforms that then can't really do anything else. That's the kind of thing that makes admirals shift uncomfortably from foot to foot. Everything needs to be "multi-mission" these days. And MIW is one of those missions that you don't need at all...until you need it, and then you really need it, immediately, and it can't be done ad hoc.
Good points. It's a big investment to keep HM flying and it's hard to get them to sea because the 53 and all of the specialized gear requires an LHD/A, LPD, or ESB to support.
Originally the CONOPS for 60S AMCM was that it would be a capability that would be organic to the CSG/ESG. 60s would take off their SUW mission kits and put on the AMCM mission kits as required. The CONOPS changed to putting AMCM 60s on LCS as part of the MIW mission package. Either way, the reason that HM is still around today is because of technical challenges with the next gen equipment that was slated for the 60 and LCS. Until those challenges can be overcome the HM community will have to shoulder the burden while flying iron so tired its dangerous.
balloonattack
New Member
Thanks for all the replies! Very good info to know...
Correct me if I am wrong - and I may very well be because my info on this topic is largely from USNA pro-knowledge that is now several years old - but isn't that the basis for one of the "modules" for the LCS? Launch little semi-submersibles to find / destroy mines?
A lot of it probably can be but it would take a lot of 'startup' funding where the MH-53's are already paid for.
Speed and area coverage... if you've got a task of clearing X area with Y probability of success in Z time, what's going to do it more quickly? Also mobility- Any vessel can be a mine sweeper... once. How long would it take to get a ship with mine clearing capabilities half way around the world by sea vs how long could you pack up helicopters with capability and airlift them into theater.
You just qualified to be the Mine Warfare Officer on a staff tour. LOL
All it would take is ONE ship to hit ONE mine in the vicinity of the SOH or other choke point and our focus, tactics, etc... would be drastically altered.
Mines are cheap. Noone cares about wasting them.
Oh, I forgot to add: There is no faster way to lose your entire Navy than to throw some mines off a small boat in the Arabian Gulf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
Last edited:
AMCM was started back in the 50s and become a viable thing in the late 60s because it was the best way to do it at that time. Long term plans are for a lot of the MCM mission to be taken over by USVs but the technical hurdles are not small.