I think USN wants a plug and play option that doesn't provide a permanent weight penalty on an airframe. That and they don't want to throw a ton of money at a problem that represents a small percentage of the mission that an airframe will execute. The M197 was always intended as an interim weapon.
-
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
The great Helo debate
- Thread starter PhrogLoop
- Start date
A realist's (and realistic) view of the problem. The irony is that the T&R is exactly the opposite.
I don't know what the current state of affairs is with the M197, but I know the plan was to keep the T&R low for it because it's such a niche system.
The preferred long term plan has alway been to have something that was a fire and forget round for a LAU type pod.
This is only really a problem in one place in the world, so I can fully understand the Navy's desire to keep the cost low. Sure, the fleet/community/WTIs would love to have a cool gun that they could start trying to use in other areas, but Big navy just doesn't see the need for it.
I didn't specifically just mean the Sierra, but in general for the Navy helo community. 80% of the time spent training on stuff that is 20% (at best) of what we actually do. I understand why for most of it, but as I've watched the community as a whole evolve over the last 13 years, all that training has been at the expense of some of the basic pilot stuff that's still needed. Obviously in our fiscal environment, stuff had to give, but that doesn't make any less frustrating.
Helicopter camoflage always makes me laugh. The Navy has had it right for ever. Our pale blue/gray paint job works everywhere (overland included) because a high percentage our threats come from below, day and night. I never saw the point of visually blending into the ground below/around me just to disrupt visual acquisition by the odd enemy fixed wing pilot with look down/shoot down air to air capabilities (does he even exist?).
What basics - curious on your thoughts? A night TERF done right can get a lot of basics.
As for guns - what is the point of a weapon if you aren't proficient in live fire? Close defense needs JAGs and NCEA on crew served weapons to solve the problem - not engineers.
Although T&R is used at the squadron level as tool for squadron training and readiness (duh), my perception is that at higher levels it's used as a way to quantify to the budget folks why we need the flight hours that we do. With T&R, CNAF and OPNAV (or whoever fights this fight) can ask for a flight hour budget that's defendable. There are quantifiable metrics in there that support the need for that amount of basic maintenance flight hours plus operational requirements. A more cynical side would say that maybe T&R requirements are written to ensure that squadrons HAVE to get a certain amount of money (I'm looking at you USMC NVD syllabus).
I think something that's very hard about this discussion is how do you quantitatively define proficient? Is it left up to the HAC? Up to some sort of community MDG standard? Fly all flights with instrumented aircraft or on instrumented ranges that provide full debriefing feedback so you can say that a pilot is good enough? I know a lot of times proficient and perfect get confused, and I don't think Big Navy is willing to pay for perfect. Do the wheels need to be in the blocks every time? 95%? 90%? Some sort of wheel block CEP?
For the record, I think your perspective/experience doesn't match the average helo community pilot. And I mean that it a good (and mildly jealous) way. I also think that a portion of the HS, now HSC, T&R (again, talking AC, not RC) focuses on stuff that you guys may do regularly (that's always a spirited conversation) more so than say the HSL/HSM side. So all that said, I come at it from the expeditionary HSL/M mindset, which includes an inordinate amount of MAS/SCAR/Section Attack training consisting of target tasking, but then it's never done in real life. I understand that some of the same fundamentals are applied for investigative tasking with the air wing now, but so much energy is spent on "30 seconds time on target" when the majority of what's actually done is moving a sensor around to various areas and monitoring.
Meanwhile, something like a TERF flight includes many of the fundamental pilot stuff, which is what I meant by basics. Airwork, CRM, landings in unprepared terrain, etc. But from the HSL/M perspective, that's just not really done (for multiple reasons, many of them completely reasonable). So now you have to do those specific mission tasks, AND find hours and time to keep your crews proficient with the pilot basics.
Do we need to be prepared for the yellow horde? Sure, but I've been told about how we need to be prepared for the yellow horde for years now, but the flight hours keep getting fewer and fewer for the basics.
No argument from me there. I've continued to say that I don't understand why we keep bolting new guns/missile systems to the airframes but don't up the NCEA. But I know I'm preaching to the choir....and to someone who probably has a pretty healthy NCEA right now.
As with everything else, I think it depends on who you're supporting when you land in those blocks...to continue the metaphor.
But I don't disagree with your statements. When I say T&R, it's just an easy way to reference the list of requirements as a whole, not the budgetary reason behind it.
And they will continue to get fewer and fewer until those in key leadership positions tell their superiors "We dont have the hours the prepare for said yellow horde" and that their squadrons are combat ineffective due to lack of flight hours and training.
You mentioned how we do the 'basics' when we do TERF flights but, hell, I haven't done a TERF flight in probably 3-4 months. Certainly haven't gone out and practiced any autos or single-engine approaches (which I haven't done in 9 months or more). And the sad part of that is I'm in a squadron that just finished workups and has 'a lot of hours' (relatively speaking of course).
The M197 still jams a lot. At best, 25% of the time and some of the longer term numbers I've heard have been up to 53% of the time due to the link fed system.
It may have only been purchased for a niche in one part of the world, but the ramifications of having Navy helos being capable of attack/gunship type of ops are definitely something to consider. SCAR, CAS and Self-RESCORT with the LAU pods, M-197, and GAU-21s installed being a couple of applications.
But then again, this would involve giving us the hours to actually practice and train to this stuff which brings me to my previous point.
Last edited:
That's where Gatordev and I's T&R budgeting discussion comes in. This is why T&R is a necessary evil, so community leadership can show how a flight hour cut will affect readiness.
I don't want to put words in HSCSs mouth, but I think his point is that flying skills aren't mutually exclusive. The same skills you use on a terf flight will help you on an instrument prof and during your practice EPs. If you can stick it in the dirt on a LL night then you should easily be able to do a daytime auto or single engine approach.
This is kind of a dick move on my part, but why haven't you gone out and practiced EPs in a nine months? If you know that you need to work on that skillset, then it's something you need to ensure gets worked into your flight routine. If you fly twice a week, that's eight flights a month. If you do one auto or one instrument approach during each flight, you'd have done at least four approaches and four autos. Individual aircrew need to assess their own proficiency and carve 10 minutes out of each bag they get to ensure some of the basics are covered. This is as easy as an instrument recovery or instead of flying home as a section you break off as singles and go hit an OLF. Or maybe just shoot a single engine profile to your landing by flying a stated limited torque. I know it's awful to think the man won't give you dedicated day FAMs, but such is the world in which we live.
I'd stray away from talking about weapon system effectiveness in an open forum. But your second point is what I was discussing earlier in this thread. The Navy didn't buy this gun for the types of missions you're describing. They paid for it and the required T&R for one purpose that was drive by a COCOM Operational Need. Anything else that you may want to use it for is a want that Big Navy doesn't need.
It's easy to think we could just knock it off early and go practice autos or single-engine stuff, but we're already cutting it close on a 2 hour bag to get the tactics card requirements and training done. I get what you're saying and I agree with you to an extent, but you can't sit here and do 'super-currency' flights where you do 15 coupled approaches, 6 actual instrument approaches, train a PQM/H2P to do CAS/SOF/PR/etc..., do a TERF route, get your UPLS, and then practice AUTOs on the way back while you're trying to shoot a single engine approach to a spot every time you go fly. That sentence is funny, but the not-so-funny part of that is that it doesn't even cover vertrep, gun patterns, ships, or half the other currency items we're expected to maintain.
I understand that it is a 'want' but our superiors seem to feel like it's a 'need' and, in this case, this list of 'wants' could quickly turn into needs and could've been useful capabilities over the last 10 years if the communites had been able to do them.
I know it can be done because I've done it myself while in the syllabus and instructing. It you try and do it all on one flight, you're right, it will never work out. That's why I was saying do one thing per flight. Manage the flight so there's a .2 at the end left over for an instrument recovery or a single engine approach or two. If you do this on every flight by the end of every month you'll have more than enough proficiency in whatever area you like.
I'd be curious as to where the LAU/M197 would have been useful over the past ten years. As I've mentioned, those weapons were procured to be used in one role. Since no ships have been damaged by potential enemies while conducting straits transits, I don't see what more they could have added to history.
If you're talking about the HSC community's never ending desire to take their maritime helicopters overland and play gunship with a utility helicopter, then I still don't see what they could have added. The MH-60S was procured by Big Navy to fulfill maritime missions. A limited number of these missions, primarily NSW and PR, may require overland flight. But in the past ten years, these missions have been filled by other organizations that are better trained to these missions, while the HSC/HS communities have fulfilled their primary ROC/POE maritime missions. While I understand the community's desire to run to the sound of the guns and get in to the fight, the bottom line is that Big Navy needs the helos to fulfill their primary missions first. While plane guard and vertrep may not be sexy, they are necessary to the continued operation of the CSG.
We spend the most time practicing the things we do the least. The days of getting day fams are mostly gone. Everything is a syllabus event. The new requirement for Command is to be Level III across the board. When I get back from deployment the command will have to spend the cash to get me Level 3 in ASU and PR. Yes it is better to get pilots more quals. But I will not deploy anymore in the squadron. That means they will use flight hours on me to get a qual I won't use other then to be the HAC on some training flight. Everything is tactics, tactics, tactics.
Here is a thread that discussed some of the issues. http://www.airwarriors.com/communit...res-no-way-hsc-exp-can-accomplish-this.40753/
Here is a thread that discussed some of the issues. http://www.airwarriors.com/communit...res-no-way-hsc-exp-can-accomplish-this.40753/
For better or worse, this is nothing new. What you and jtmedli describe sounds like the fleet squadron I left over five years ago. When I was in the squadron the community was changing from the community you left to the one you came back to. When I got there, 1A1 flights we're the norm. When I left, 1A1 flights were for new check ins and guys coming off of leave who needed warm up flights. As a post-cruise HAC I was pretty much either instructing a syllabus card or FCFing, so I fully understand the ramifications of the demise of the EP review flight. But at the same time, I think the old HC community had an unsustainable love for area fams. Area fams were the mission for years and generations of HC pilots, but with the increasing mission requirements (some needed, some community driven) those hours have to go elsewhere.
That's why I was saying that the fleet would do itself some favors if it could determine a way to measure proficiency besides currency and use these metrics to determine the actual need for proficiency vice a perceived need to be absolutely perfect at practice autos and single engine landings.