Isn't LCS getting drowned like a sack of puppies taking some HSC with it?
-
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
HM community
- Thread starter balloonattack
- Start date
Isn't LCS getting drowned like a sack of puppies taking some HSC with it?
I'm sure they'll just go to whatever ship gets flicked with the MCM booger.
So one thing I’ve always found interesting is folks with zero experience in a platform sharing their hot takes about its operational employment.. Navy MH-53’s have dragged behind a Herc from Norfolk to Bermuda; I personally know one of the pilots who did it. Additionally the Marines day/ night HAAR routinely in essentially exactly the same aircraft. Is it a capability we should put forward and brag about as a community? Eh, maybe not. But certainly not more or less so than the HSC “when the real stuff goes down we are gonna support SEALS!” construct (hint hint no, no you won’t). HM does an old and less exciting mission set (AMCM) plus heavy-lift vertical onboard delivery really well. The MH-53E an aging airframe and needs either direct investment in the future (purchase the Kilo) or a specific plan for fleet divestment. Hopefully soon we will all get an answer to that question soon.
*For the record, when the real stuff kicks off we get across the pond via C-5 airlift. In both 1991 and OIF, AMCM and the aircraft were deemed a ‘national asset’ in order to keep the SLOC open.
Chuck, you aren't informed on what the HM community has done.
Interesting article on the Mine Warfare world from USNI: https://news.usni.org/2018/10/31/navy-crafting-master-plan-new-mine-warfare-capabilities#more-37709
I don't disagree. HM however was never great at telling their story.
FormerRecruitingGuru
Making Recruiting Great Again
For a second I thought this thread was about people wanting to be a Corpsman.
MCM as a mission area is sticking around, but the construct is changing and the ending is still probably (likely?) up for debate.
Old CONOP: Aviation (MH-53E) capable of executing most/all of the kill chain. I’m not up to speed on how much Avenger-class ships do, unfortunately.
New CONOP: Kill chain will require actors in air, surface, subsurface domain. No one asset will be able to do it all.
For now, the aviation side is moving towards MH-60S and Fire Scout (maybe? kinda?). I think there was some FY19/20 or FY21 NDAA language prohibiting MH-53E sundown until MCM modules, etc. were figured out.
Remember that LCS is two different classes with different capabilities (SUW/ASW/MCM) and issues. All of the proposed LCS decommissions are Freedom class. What that means for the LCS MCM mission package, though, I’m not sure.
Old CONOP: Aviation (MH-53E) capable of executing most/all of the kill chain. I’m not up to speed on how much Avenger-class ships do, unfortunately.
New CONOP: Kill chain will require actors in air, surface, subsurface domain. No one asset will be able to do it all.
For now, the aviation side is moving towards MH-60S and Fire Scout (maybe? kinda?). I think there was some FY19/20 or FY21 NDAA language prohibiting MH-53E sundown until MCM modules, etc. were figured out.
Remember that LCS is two different classes with different capabilities (SUW/ASW/MCM) and issues. All of the proposed LCS decommissions are Freedom class. What that means for the LCS MCM mission package, though, I’m not sure.
Last edited:
I think the we are 10 years late on the Navy picking up a multi billion dollar procurement for an MH-53K variant. Lots of non-recurring engineering and development dollars needed to figure it out. This was on the table in 2011 - 2012 IIRC. If there’s a demand signal and funds, industry can build it, although not sure it is necessary with advanced sensor technology available today in various family of systems.
HSM is a pretty safe bet IMO. High demand mission, good equipment. However, your competition field for long term promotion is more narrow as there are many players in the game. This mostly matters if have you want to jump in the game of breaking out and competing for command.
Consider, too, that Navy rotary is coming up on a generational change based on the age of the aircraft. HSM and its mission sets will likely have the greatest share of the Navy FVL effort.
Distributed ships means distributed helicopters, and HSM gives a good foundation in the kinds of sensors and mission types the Navy will need.
Left unsaid is that MCM is an ugly baby no one wants. SURFOR wants to kill the Avengers. NAVAIR wants to kill the 53s. Even EOD doesn't really like ExMCM. Responsibility for the mission gets punted around big Navy. When have you ever heard of an Admiral saying "good lord I don't want that responsibility"? It's a niche mission set with Cold War era gear in a world of multimission platforms.
In reality some mix of unmanned systems, EOD, and maybe a modern version of what the Brits have with Sandown/Hunt class coastal mine hunters (or the Osprey class we got rid of in favor of the Avenger class) is probably the answer.
RE the NDAA language from FY19 or FY20, I was literally on the MCMRON staff when we were asked to give inputs for the report to Congress. The NDAA language was written such that Congress can authorize it if they concur the mission is being met, but I haven't kept spun up on it since leaving the RON (thank god).
I know there's a lot of HM folks here who've lived their entire careers under the threat of the community going away, and take it as an odd badge of honor to keep the per diem/schwarma/soju gravy train rolling. However, the end is coming and there won't be a new 53K to save you.
In reality some mix of unmanned systems, EOD, and maybe a modern version of what the Brits have with Sandown/Hunt class coastal mine hunters (or the Osprey class we got rid of in favor of the Avenger class) is probably the answer.
RE the NDAA language from FY19 or FY20, I was literally on the MCMRON staff when we were asked to give inputs for the report to Congress. The NDAA language was written such that Congress can authorize it if they concur the mission is being met, but I haven't kept spun up on it since leaving the RON (thank god).
I know there's a lot of HM folks here who've lived their entire careers under the threat of the community going away, and take it as an odd badge of honor to keep the per diem/schwarma/soju gravy train rolling. However, the end is coming and there won't be a new 53K to save you.
Pax Water Cooler rumor from almost 10 years ago, but my understanding was that Sikorsky (pre-merger) had offered the Navy to put the sled mounts into the 53K design as a "just in case" measure should the Navy change its mind on MCM.
Navy said nope, and as such it would be impossible to mount the sled to standard issue 53K and would require a not insignificant redesign to make everything work.
Now obviously Sikorsky wouldn't allegedly do this entirely out of altruism, but a Navy own-goal is something that feels true.
Navy said nope, and as such it would be impossible to mount the sled to standard issue 53K and would require a not insignificant redesign to make everything work.
Now obviously Sikorsky wouldn't allegedly do this entirely out of altruism, but a Navy own-goal is something that feels true.
Can someone explain to me why we can't just make the sled an autonomous vehicle in and of itself? Why rely on Firescout or technologies that don't seem to have the same capacity on the MH-60S? Why tether it to a ship class under major scrutiny (LCS)? Why not just make the actual sled, or the technology that's in the sled autonomous (I'm assuming the sled itself is more effective than the proposed replacements)?
HM used to be ship based before Synix’s time in the community of FDNF based HM. In the vain of reducing special purpose ships, the Tripoli class was retired and the MCM mission was included in the multipurpose LCS class.
The sled (formally known as the Mk-105) is a unique piece of gear that was originally intended to be towed out of an amphibious ship’s well deck and transitioned onto its hydrofoils before entering the minefield. It’s been around since Vietnam in various configs.
IMO, The guts of it can absolutely be repackaged and integrated into larger remotely operated unmanned surface platform. It would still require some manual handling for some of the mission aspects.
Just add a requirement, lots of development $ and some fielding time and there you go.