-
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
MH-60R Sleds
- Thread starter fudog50
- Start date
No "Sleds" (MK105) for 60s of any kind.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
What about M.O.P?
OASIS not for a long time, Q-20 a little sooner, MOP possibly for training.
fudog50
Registered User
MH-60 Sleds
The reason I'm asking is to try to justify future requirements for extending the Mezzanine on Nimitz class. ShipAlt 9071K got cank'd. Currently we stow 12 AWW-13 data link Pods for SLAM-ER, about 50 ALQ-99 Assets and 4-5 hardbacks.
The Prowler Vans are coming down and the extension was supposed to take up the space, but it has become very difficult to justify extending the Mezz if no other stowage space is needed.
Future requirements to justify the funding for extension would be-ATFLIR pods (but at 36 per CAG I would assume they would all be flying and not stowed), and MH-60R towed assets, whatever they are. I was told they were "Sleds" like the MH-53E tows, but heard H-60 ain't got the guts so a different type of minehunter is to be used.
I actually am soliciting inputs for ideas about A/C systems coming out that will need space to stow,,,bring 'em on! Hangar space has always been a premium, and Handler would scream and then have a baby if we started thinking we were going to stow more stuff on the Hangar deck!
(spare H-60 rotor blades and spare fuel cells are already scheduled to be stowed forward hanging from the upper deck in Hangar Bay 1)
If you have any inputs or suggestions, please let me know, thanks.
The reason I'm asking is to try to justify future requirements for extending the Mezzanine on Nimitz class. ShipAlt 9071K got cank'd. Currently we stow 12 AWW-13 data link Pods for SLAM-ER, about 50 ALQ-99 Assets and 4-5 hardbacks.
The Prowler Vans are coming down and the extension was supposed to take up the space, but it has become very difficult to justify extending the Mezz if no other stowage space is needed.
Future requirements to justify the funding for extension would be-ATFLIR pods (but at 36 per CAG I would assume they would all be flying and not stowed), and MH-60R towed assets, whatever they are. I was told they were "Sleds" like the MH-53E tows, but heard H-60 ain't got the guts so a different type of minehunter is to be used.
I actually am soliciting inputs for ideas about A/C systems coming out that will need space to stow,,,bring 'em on! Hangar space has always been a premium, and Handler would scream and then have a baby if we started thinking we were going to stow more stuff on the Hangar deck!
(spare H-60 rotor blades and spare fuel cells are already scheduled to be stowed forward hanging from the upper deck in Hangar Bay 1)
If you have any inputs or suggestions, please let me know, thanks.
That's classic...typical narrow-minded POV from the CAG towards the 60H, F and R. We have other helos??? I digress.
The MH-60R will not be towing anything. They'll have the dipping hardware that the 60F currently has, but nothing towed. The MH-60S is supposed to pick up the minehunting, but has since been indefinitly delayed as the 60S doesn't have the power to drag sleds like the 53 currently does. The Block 2s were concieved when the Navy had the 2 helo plan. It's now a 3 helo plan as we don't plan on sun downing the 53 like we used to...
As for how to stow it aboard the carrier...yeah...if the 60S ever does get the mine-towing gear online, the people who will be "experts" on it will have NO concept of where to put it on the carrier...as these people are typically not around carriers. In fact, the minesweeping community falls under a total different operational branch than the CAG.
Your question has no immediate answer...just like "what airframe is going to replace the MH-53?"
Chunks, I think you were flying it... H60S. Nothing identified in the pipeline to replace the Navy 53s.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Yeeeah, lets replace our ONLY heavy lift helo, with a medium lift one with minimal internal capacity.
That is like replacing a Peterbilt with a F-150.
That is like replacing a Peterbilt with a F-150.
Easy chunks. You have no idea what goes on at the "CAG" level. Throwing out blanket statements like that are uneducated, unadvised and just plain silly. OAMCM on a carrier is a long way away (if it ever happens at all) and to assume the CAG doesn't care is ill-advised.
Is the carrier-based OAMCM even a viable concept anymore? I thought OAMCM had pretty much migrated to the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).
A huge amount of work was done to make the CVN/OAMCM concept work by congressionaly mandated IOC in CY 05. Never came to fruition.
We're a small community. 3 squadrons being reduced to 2 (HC-4 has a decomm message on the street). So there it is..... I wonder what the master plan is myself.
There's no crying in Naval Aviation.