Navy mine countermeasures helicopters

[SynixMan]

While heavy lift/ PMC is always the secondary mission set for HM, there are several real-world examples of why the community continues to matter. Surface ships clear the water column (either mine hunting or mine sweeping) incredibly slowly whereas a 53 can tow at sometimes 2-3x the speed of the ship: on many an exercise in Bahrain that alone proved the aircraft’s worth to the MCMRON staff. From the outside looking in I get that a lot doesn’t necessarily make sense, but in most complex defense topics I think that’s often the case.

Former MCMRON staffer here. Yes, the ability on paper of AMCM is great. Unfortunately sortie generation with the current airframes was frustrating and Big Navy decided funding a successor 53 wasn’t worth it. Our NATO partners do it professionally and efficiently with Coastal Minehunters, and I’m firmly a believer that’s where we should be going (along with EOD).

 

[Griz882]

I had a flight school buddy who went to HC-4 in Italy flying the CH-53. He loved the work, loved the duty station, and always felt that the Navy made a big mistake by dropping the Sea Stallion line for vertrep and other heavy lift missions.

 

[ChuckMK23]

HC-4 was legendary in its "Verticle Onboard Delivery" role. It prided itself on "reach" with it's CH-53E's. It was big Navy that stopped funding their AAR qual/capability ("you don't need that for PMC"), then their night shipboard capability stopped being funded, etc. Their CH's went to the Marines when these airframes were needed to be replaced with worn out partial-mission-capable stripped MH's. And then CENTCOM drama about being HC-4 getting tasked to provide hot/high support when it was needed in Afghanistan - neither NVG or defensive capability was funded, to a tragic mishap. The squadron guys did heroics only to see sr. leadership fail to support the capability/mission. A familiar movie