I dunno, maybe I was told wrong, but the story I relayed was directly from guys in 84 now and also from guys who were there when it was HCS-4.
Yeah, I haven't heard about that. What was the justification?
I dunno, maybe I was told wrong, but the story I relayed was directly from guys in 84 now and also from guys who were there when it was HCS-4.
It was communicated to me that when they originally transitioned from HH to S, the older HH was still incredibly tactically superior to the Block 1 Sierra. There were not enough block 3bs to go around so the decision was made to transition back to the Hotel. Two people I know heading to 85 said that that they will definitely be transitioning back to the Sierra once there are more Block 3bs to go around. Again, that is hand me down knowledge.
Yeah, the Blk I Seirra is pretty much just a trash hauler and DDA bird. HSC-85 was able to use them in their old range support / bambi bucket reserve mission, but the Blk Is do not have the capabilities such as ASE and MTS that 84/85 would require.
I've also heard some hate and discontent about how the Sierra handles flight plans / DAFIF in the cockpit, but a lot of the old limitations are gone in new software drops and moving map will only increase the capability of the Sierra.
Yeah, the Blk I Seirra is pretty much just a trash hauler and DDA bird. HSC-85 was able to use them in their old range support / bambi bucket reserve mission, but the Blk Is do not have the capabilities such as ASE and MTS that 84/85 would require.
I've also heard some hate and discontent about how the Sierra handles flight plans / DAFIF in the cockpit, but a lot of the old limitations are gone in new software drops and moving map will only increase the capability of the Sierra.
The Sierra really struggled with OT in these areas, but the reality is that the Romeo functionality was more important to the common cockpit, and the mission isn't as important to Big Navy as it is to the given communities. The SEAL's aren't arguing H vs. S, they are choosing 160th over anybody else.
The SEALS wanted the 60H, not the 60S. That's why 84 and 85 went with those.
Well, let me list - 60S: no GAU-17, a horrible system to utilize guns (aka - we didn't buy USAF 60G universal mount for M240/GAU-2/.50 Cal), severe mission planning issues, loss of cabin space with additional fuel, and only 2 x ARC210s.
HH - GAU17, 3 x ARC210s, BFT (with integrated map), a bigger display for the FLIR, short wheel base for CRUDES ops, and a Commodore 64 era mission planning system that beats the hell out of the 60S
It is just me - but I am buying off the used car lot.
Well, let me list - 60S: no GAU-17, a horrible system to utilize guns (aka - we didn't buy USAF 60G universal mount for M240/GAU-2/.50 Cal), severe mission planning issues, loss of cabin space with additional fuel, and only 2 x ARC210s.
HH - GAU17, 3 x ARC210s, BFT (with integrated map), a bigger display for the FLIR, short wheel base for CRUDES ops, and a Commodore 64 era mission planning system that beats the hell out of the 60S
It is just me - but I am buying off the used car lot.