Navy Cutting Aviation Budget

[Gatordev]

They have actually started out with the -60Bs. I think that was some feasability testing. Can be very big brother though -- you can tell exactly when and where you pulled too much torque or exceeded some limit.

Yup. There are (or were, anyway) a couple at HSL-41, not sure about the east coast. Agree on the forward firing stuff. It was looked at and they are working on something. There are a few threads here about LOGIR, which is supposed to be fleet wide. Don't know the current status, as my info is over a year old, but it looked to be a major contender.

As for Roll On/Roll Off, that was the original plan for the Romeo, but since they were supposed to be operational by 2002...2003....2004... and they couldn't make it happen, they scrapped it to get the program moving. That wasn't the sole reason, but it contrubuted to the delay.

 

[eddie]

Esoteric / subjective question (well two actually):

1. HSCS: "It would be nice to see the platforms that the communities need, actually being produced."

Does this ever happen? Can it happen? Are the politics circumventable, I guess, is my question.

2. What would it take for the Navy (and Corps for that matter) to truly get the funding they "need?" I mean this in a current events frame of reference.

 

[hscs]

Eddie,

Not sure I get your point -- I am saying that the navy did buy a very effective platform in the 'S'. I am glad that the Navy bought it -- it is getting upgrades that will make it extremely effective in both overwater and overland. It will, at least, double the capability that is available in the current 60s.

In fact, they have made a smart buy that the Marines have investigated the S as an option if the newest Huey doesn't make the grade.

 

[eddie]

Eddie,

Not sure I get your point -- I am saying that the navy did buy a very effective platform in the 'S'. I am glad that the Navy bought it -- it is getting upgrades that will make it extremely effective in both overwater and overland. It will, at least, double the capability that is available in the current 60s.

In fact, they have made a smart buy that the Marines have investigated the S as an option if the newest Huey doesn't make the grade.

I fvcked up, misquoted you with lowflier.

College = not enough sleep...

 

[Rocky3168]

OMG! does this mean that I may not get jets?

 

[lowflier03]

Actually, the Kilo can do NSW and CSAR and LOG runs. The can put up to 12 seats in the back, or completely remove them and have plenty of room for cargo or whatever you need. Plus the Sonar Dome isnt in the way. All of the ASE gear is on there. Plus they have the better engines and rotors to haul all that stuff. And the moving map setup in the Sierra is stupid. They went with 1 display driver and a second panel being a repeater to save money now. However that lowers the resolution, and makes the 2 screens non interchangeable. As for the foward firing toys, numerous people have pushed for them, and it gets turned down at the higher levels. Mainly because it would put us in the area of real overland missions, which some people dont want. And for us to be really effective at CSAR we need in flight refueling. The way it sits now, the Army and Air Force get those missions because we dont have the "legs".

 

[jarhead]

i read in this weeks Marine Corps Times that the Corps proposed FY08 budget includes "a 14-month delay in the fielding of a jump-jet version of the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter and a cut in yearly MV-22 Osprey buys that would total 25 aircraft". i'm wondering how far back that's gonna push the F-35 now? last i heard we werent gonna see it until 2011 at the earliest.

good times ... i'm fairly positive that we aren't a nation at war, only a military at war

S/F

 

[BigIron]

Actually, the Kilo can do NSW and CSAR and LOG runs. The can put up to 12 seats in the back, or completely remove them and have plenty of room for cargo or whatever you need. Plus the Sonar Dome isnt in the way. All of the ASE gear is on there. Plus they have the better engines and rotors to haul all that stuff. And the moving map setup in the Sierra is stupid. They went with 1 display driver and a second panel being a repeater to save money now. However that lowers the resolution, and makes the 2 screens non interchangeable. As for the foward firing toys, numerous people have pushed for them, and it gets turned down at the higher levels. Mainly because it would put us in the area of real overland missions, which some people dont want. And for us to be really effective at CSAR we need in flight refueling. The way it sits now, the Army and Air Force get those missions because we dont have the "legs".

You guys can vertrep like nobody's business though

 

[BigIron]

good times ... i'm fairly positive that we aren't a nation at war, only a military at war

Profound and true.

 

[hscs]

Have you seen the plan for the setup in the S? I only ask because there are two knee boards and one screen for the crewmen.

AR does not cause us to lose missions. The HH has range.

You will see other forward firing ordnance other than the Hellfire.

One question -- wouldn't you rather have double doors, true gunners windows, and a tail mounted tailwheel (as opposed to the ship variant that is on the B/F/H/R)? That capability alone is enough to make me want the S over your jack of all trades, the dome has been taken out too many times so now it doesn't work, I have too many missions to prepare for so that I am bound to suck at all of them, SH-60K aircraft.

 

[lowflier03]

Actually, the way the dome comes in and out, isnt an issue with performing many different missions. Heck, the point of just having 2 helos in the Navy is to be a "Jack of all trades." The Conus squadrons cant swap the dome that often and have it work, because they rarely use it. We use ours all the time, and have no issues with swapping. And we have used our Foxtrots for CSAR and NSW training with SAS then a few days later put the dome back in and used it to track a sub. And by the way, the HH does not have the "Legs" for a real CSAR. The Kilo overcomes that issue by having a removable aux tank in the interior, plus the bubbles. And with the better engines, etc. they actually have the power to carry the extra fuel while still loaded up. With how far off the action the carrier sits, we dont have the legs to really go overland and to a real rescue. And dont get me started on the stupidity of the tailwheel being located where it is on the Sierra and Romeo. Thats the problem with producing a Navy helo off the Army's blackhawk line. The Kilo has the double doors and a very effective gunners window.

Last I heard (last month) our "planned" foward firing ordnance had all been cancelled. Not that the Hellfire is our limiting factor right now anyways. Too many issues to really discuss in an open forum.

 

[squorch2]

Man, good thing the Sierra doesn't have two removable aux tanks plus externals (in block III).

Oh wait.

 

[hscs]

Actually, the way the dome comes in and out, isnt an issue with performing many different missions. Heck, the point of just having 2 helos in the Navy is to be a "Jack of all trades." The Conus squadrons cant swap the dome that often and have it work, because they rarely use it. We use ours all the time, and have no issues with swapping. And we have used our Foxtrots for CSAR and NSW training with SAS then a few days later put the dome back in and used it to track a sub. And by the way, the HH does not have the "Legs" for a real CSAR. The Kilo overcomes that issue by having a removable aux tank in the interior, plus the bubbles. And with the better engines, etc. they actually have the power to carry the extra fuel while still loaded up. With how far off the action the carrier sits, we dont have the legs to really go overland and to a real rescue. And dont get me started on the stupidity of the tailwheel being located where it is on the Sierra and Romeo. Thats the problem with producing a Navy helo off the Army's blackhawk line. The Kilo has the double doors and a very effective gunners window.

Last I heard (last month) our "planned" foward firing ordnance had all been cancelled. Not that the Hellfire is our limiting factor right now anyways. Too many issues to really discuss in an open forum.

Guess you haven't asked your customers that you were training with if they like two doors -- and what a pain in the ass it is to have to squeeze by the gunner in the current Seahawk door.

I have always had the legs I need in the H to cover my missions. It isn't the legs that cause the missions to be lost -- there are other issues that we cannot discus over this forum.

If you haven't noticed -- the R and the S have the tailwheel in different locations. I would give up my H for a Block III S right now. I bet you would like the tailwheel in the S if you had a chance to fly it. The aft tailhweel configuration allows you to not worry about hitting the stab if you get hot in low.

Please read and do a little more before you make statements. There is nothing worse than someone who backs up their arguments with incorrect information.

 

[1rotorhead]

Amen HSCS. I'm pretty happy with the direction of the S. It may not be perfect, but it is an improvement over the HH. Good buddy of mine at PAX keeps me informed of the Block III development and the problems people complain about are slowly being resolved. I'm looking forward to not having to train to 4 missions. Why would you want to do everything like HS does now. Pride may let you say you can be good at all 4, but the reality is you're not.