Future of helo land

[Chubby]

I am curious to know how the Navy helo communities are changing/going to change in the near future. I know that all of the squadrons are switching over to HSC or HSM, but is that a fundamental shift in mission etc., or just a change in name. I guess what I'm asking is, is HSM just going to be HSL with newer 60's and HSC HS with newer birds? You know a rose by any other name and all. Or are the missions, deployments cycles/set-up etc. going to change with them and if so to what extent/direction are they going to? What should a JO who selects helos expect in so far as the helo community is concerned? Thanks.

 

[absolutVU]

I did a google search on this a couple of weeks ago and thought this article explained it pretty well--for the technical realignment and mission portion of it, anyway.

http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/nov_03_33.php

 

[bch]

Big things... HSL and HS will merge and HS an HC will merge. There will be 2 types of HSM sqds. Those that deploy as a sqd to a battle group (or strike group or ARG) and then det out to all the ships in the group. This means that the CO and XO will deploy now as well. The other type of HSM will be what HSL is today. The det concept on small boys doing independent ops.
ASW will still be a primary missions along with ASuW (USW and SUW whatever you want to call it these days.)

I can't speak very intelligently about HSC as I am not in either one of those communities. But the days of only VERTREP'in are coming to an end, as the 2 types of sqds merge you will see a shift from Vertrep and CSAR/ASW only to Vertrep and CSAR both becoming primary missions.

IMHO it is a good time to be gettin into Navy helos, there will be some growing pains (especially as the B begins to age a lot), but I think all in all it will be a good change.

 

[nittany03]

When did they come up with the idea for detting out HSM independently? Granted I'm not a helo guy, so I'm likely talking out the wrong end of my digestive tract, but that's the first I'd heard of that. Is that to fill in for ESGs, SAGs, and other situations where small boys aren't under the direct control of a carrier?

 

[bch]

it was not a matter of detting out HSM being a new idea, rather sending the entire sqd to a battle group is the big change.

Not all naval operations are conducted with a strike/battle group. There are a large amount of ops that are independent ships and their air det. As a result they will still need dets to deploy with.

 

[Gatordev]

If you do a search, there's a couple of threads that go into more detail about what this means, but here's the quick and dirty...

Like BCH said (btw, when you coming out here?), HSL will still be HSL initially, but just called HSM. HSL-47 has already started deploying to the carrier and then detting out from there. Most of the seawall squadrons will start to do that when the Romeos come on line. However, the Bravos won't be leaving until 2015, so some of the squadrons will hang onto them. Normally, HSL just dets out to one ship at a time for each det, so that's not new, and the "expeditionary" squadrons (read: squadrons that will keep the Bs) will continue to do that. For example, by about 2013, all the HSLs (which will be HSM then) will have Romeos EXCEPT HSL-37. We're the last ones. However, some of those Romeo squadrons will still be expeditionary, and support SAGs and Drug ops, as will -37 and the Bs.

The big hurdle, IMO, will be merging HS guys into HSL. We have a lot more missions than the HS guys, and a lot of them don't tend to interest the HS guys, so from what I'm hearing, many of them want to go over to HSC. However, HSL going to the battlegroup will be nothing but a good thing for HSL, IMO.

Hope that helped.

 

[Chubby]

Sorry, errant post. Pull it.

 

[HH-60H]

The big hurdle, IMO, will be merging HS guys into HSL. We have a lot more missions than the HS guys, and a lot of them don't tend to interest the HS guys, so from what I'm hearing, many of them want to go over to HSC.

Well I am not sure how many you think we have, but I am sure you don't have "alot" more.

To touch on the HSC side of things. All (or nearly) HS squadrons (not necessarily the pilots/aircrew who will slowly filter to HSM and HSC) will eventually be renamed HSC. These squadrons will intially continue the typical plane guard and logistics mission that HS has today, at first flying 60F's and H's. At some point, now sooner than later, they will begin their transition to 60S's, like the the HC squadrons have. However, the S's out in the fleet and the next set to come are not equipped with any cool ASE gear, or other such neat stuff, making them not too useful for the overland CSAR missions that they need to eventually need to take on. When they have this equipment they can fully replace the current 60H's. This equipment can be added on as a kit upgrade. Ultimately, the Navy will buy more 60S's that come with this equipment, however I believe there may still be some debate over what equipment is going on the final set (block III) of 60S's that the Navy purchases.

 

[ChuckMK23]

This is a great thread - and I'm hoping more people jump in here.

The Helo Ops consolidation I think is a good thing. Traditionally, the helo community lacked having CO's who were forward deployed - and the helo squadron never got representation at the O-5/O-6 level they needed - to advertise their capabilities, or get mission support.

Also - the Navy helo community has not (not since the days of HC-7)clearly not pulled it share of the load with regards to a shooting war effort. This needs to change if you guys want to see better support, more missions, better equipment, and ultimately, more budget and command opportunities.

 

[HH-60H]

Also - the Navy helo community has not (not since the days of HC-7)clearly not pulled it share of the load with regards to a shooting war effort.

While I totally agree with you, that has not really been by our choice, so much as us being pushed to the side and left out of the picture. That being said, just because we aren't shooting at someone does not mean we aren't making a critical contribution to the war effort.

 

[ChuckMK23]

While I totally agree with you, that has not really been by our choice, so much as us being pushed to the side and left out of the picture. That being said, just because we aren't shooting at someone does not mean we aren't making a critical contribution to the war effort.

Of course, I totally agree with you. To clarify I meant the joint commanders, not the individual pilots, aircrew, etc.

There is a huge inter-service argument going on right now I am told - the Navy - and more secifically Naval air, is being withheld from the joint commanders as a legitimate resource - The Navy is a very parochial organization on this kind of stuff. I'm told that there is a lot of ill will with regards to rotary wing assets in particular - that the Navy isn't making them available for purely self serving reasons. Our Army, USAF, and USMC rotary wing breathren cannot for the life of them understand why the Navy is the ONLY service that keeps it's helicopter assets from going into harms way and contributing to the war effort...

 

[HH-60H]

Yes, that has definately been a problem. Helos assigned to a CSG often can't get into the mix because CSG Commanders won't release them. While it is very frustrating, I can kind of see the CSG Commanders side of things. In a CSG helos are a very limited asset, and they are absolutely vital to making a CSG run. Not just from a ASU/ASW standpoint, but logistically. Every person and part (not transferred alongside during an UNREP) is moved around by helo. Looking at the warfare side, helos are the only fully capable air ASW assets organic to the CSG. But here is the real sticking point, the HH-60H. It is the most capable overland helo in a CSG, probably in the Navy. It has got all kind of neat ASE gear making it "safer" to operate in certain overland enviroments. In fact it has much better gear than run of the mill Blackhawks, the 60H is decked out nearly to the level of TF160 birds. So with all that being said, when the Army, AF, and Marine Corps want/need us to go play, the most and sometimes only qualified helo is the 60H. Well guess what? An entire CSG only has 3 of them, sometimes only 2 (and that is if they are all up) So the CSG commander isn't so keen on letting them go, because he will be left with 1 or none.
As the helo master plan is completed this problem will be reduced because an HSC squadron will have a few more overland capable helos (60S's) and the CSG will be able to spare them.

 

[Gatordev]

Well I am not sure how many you think we have, but I am sure you don't have "alot" more.

I'm surprised there weren't more comments about my post from HS guys

I didn't say that quite right. What I meant was more missions in a given timeframe. I'm not talking what our NATOPS or POE (or is it ROC) says. I mean more along the lines of day to day ops. Mind you this is all from gouge on the HS side... But from what I understand, if you're not flying a CSAR/TURF mission (and isn't that only a few guys who actually fly those operationally?), then it's Starbord D, w/ occaisional ASW or log flights.

For the Bravos, we may have the occasional Log or ASW flight, but on a normal bag, it's SSC, but in that flight, you may be doing ELINT, visual monitoring (covert or otherwise), and occasional OTH targeting. Of course, I'm talking operationally, not during workups. If you believed in what we did on workups, we could take on the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents single-handedly, and I'm sure you guys are the same way.

I guess another thing I've heard, as well, is that the HS guys are pretty happy w/ their job, especially w/ their CSAR ability, and if they started doing LAMPS missions, they'd probably kill themselves. I can understand this.

Hopefully all that made sense. In my post I didn't mean it as a dig on the community. Actually it was kind of a dig on mine.

 

[ChuckMK23]

When was the last time a Rotary Wing Naval Aviator was awarded a personal award for valor?

How many Helo Navy pilots and Aircrew have sustained combat related injuries or fatalities?

When was the last time an HS/HSL/HC bird sustained major combat damage?


All these would be reflections of how serious the senior Navy helo commanders are taking the war effort - and if you are Army, USMC, USAF you don't see Navy helo assets in the same vain.


Again - where did the culture of high risk, mission dedicated, war fighting mentality go (a la HC-7 or HS in the 60's) go? When will it ever come back?


You guys/gals have earned your seat at the table as far as combat operations go - so why won't Navy Flag level allow you to prove your abilities in combat?

Lets get some discussion going on this..

 

[Pags]

Interesting questions...and something I don't have an answer to.

I would guess the last time a helo crew got battle damage/awards was probably during vietnam...either the guys flying up north looking for downed pilots or the HALs down south.

Last week I was talking to some HSC guys and they were saying NSW is becoming a reality for them, with several NSW training flights in the syllabus. Plus, the word is that the navy bought the weapons kits for the -60S and that they're starting up an air ambulance mission in the near future. Which, I was told, means that armed helo isn't that far away. Hopefully, this means that Navy helos will be allowed to prove their abilities (and hopefully sometime in the next 5yrs).