• 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

Romeos Vs. Sierras

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
I guess I don't see the need for additional school - the product as well as the checks on standardization are pretty rigorous. HSC-3 SARMM doesn't mess around.
I agree, SARMM does a great job of evaluating methods and pushing new training requirements. Bottom line though, SAR crewman can't push meds, fluids, or blood. Essentially they are excellent at doing one thing, keeping someone alive within 10 miles of the boat or 20 minutes of a trauma center. As far as the unit SAR eval goes, it's not really that tough. When I was the Command SAR PO of HSC-22 I led two unit evals. The training is canned, the scenarios are the same as they've been for 30 years, and you have your best crew running them. It's not hard to pluck an uninjured survivor out of the water when you have your Command SAR PO, the SAR Officer, and two other hand picked crew playing the game.
Additionally - overland rescue is far more complicated and would require significant investment in pilot training for mountain flying as well as specialized training for crewmen (e.g. short haul, rappel).
I think you answered your own question there.

The CG is light years ahead of the Navy with respect to training, equipment, and doctrine. When I left the community in 2008, we were using a version of the TRI-SAR the CG had abandoned 6 years prior. They have radios that actually work in the water. They have SAR crewman who are more effective at keeping someone alive, administering more than basic combat-level first aid. They have better medical equipment at their disposal. They have better training facilities and crewman who are proficient and knowledgeable about survival equipment. The Advanced SAR school at Cape Disappointment has long been the industry standard in bad weather Maritime SAR, but I can count on one hand the number of Navy swimmers who've attended.

As far as the AF owning the overland SAR mission, the same could be said for the CSAR/PR mission as well. I haven't seen that stop us from beating our heads against that wall yet.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
.....Bottom line though, SAR crewman can't push meds, fluids, or blood. Essentially they are excellent at doing one thing, keeping someone alive within 10 miles of the boat or 20 minutes of a trauma center...
From a big picture perspective isn't that all they really need to do? While there could be some improvement in the way we do things and some kit we ain't the Coast Guard.
 

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
I agree, but in a thread full of lamenting over the identity of the community, and evidence that entire exp squadrons sit idly by with little employment...I thought it would be an interesting idea.

At least it's realistic.
 

lowflier03

So no $hit there I was
pilot
Rescue overland is not a doctrinal mission of the Navy. USAF owns inland SAR by doctrine. Yes, we have station SAR - but those are for specific air stations' requirements and not necessarily the neighboring community as a whole.

Additionally - overland rescue is far more complicated and would require significant investment in pilot training for mountain flying as well as specialized training for crewmen (e.g. short haul, rappel).

We also aren't trying to be what we are not - we are doing the mission that we have been directed to do.
Well in addition to station SAR squadrons, HSC-25 does overland SAR regularly. Of course they are unique in several respects, one of which is actually having flight docs and medical qualified personnel on those flights so they can push fluids.
 

hscs

Registered User
pilot
As far as the AF owning the overland SAR mission, the same could be said for the CSAR/PR mission as well. I haven't seen that stop us from beating our heads against that wall yet.
Not to throw the doctrine book - each service is required to maintain a capability to rescue its own forces in contested territory. Yes, USAF is arguably the most capable / proficient, but there is a reason that we tasks that we have to train.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
You guys do realize that there is one mission set that senior leadership in the navy (CNO, PACFLEET, FFC, C5F, C7F) wants you to be able to do. That mission is AMCM. I think its hilarious that the 60 community wants nothing to do with it, when in all likelihood, after maritime sar and vertrep, it is the a wartime mission one can reasonably expect for you guys to do in the next 10-15 years. Whatever interests your boss should fascinate the shit out of you...
I think I said it earlier in this thread, but HSC conducting MIW from LCS is the way of the future and, as @illinijoe05 has indicated, is of high interest to Big Navy. MIW is not sexy (not even a little bit) but it sure will be necessary if the balloon goes up.
 

busdriver

Well-Known Member
None
What's it like towing a mine barge thing with a Sierra?

EDIT: Guess you're not going to be doing it that way anymore.... Google is my friend.

EDIT2: Does the Romeo radar have any game overland? Probably stupid question, but I'm kinda dumb anyways.
 
Last edited:

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
What's it like towing a mine barge thing with a Sierra?

EDIT: Guess you're not going to be doing it that way anymore.... Google is my friend.

EDIT2: Does the Romeo radar have any game overland? Probably stupid question, but I'm kinda dumb anyways.
Funny you asked...I was one of the guys who did the the operational testing of the MH-60S with the AN/AQS-20 that ended with Big Navy turning off towing with the MH-60S. I finished the testing with 40+ tow hours in the MH-60S. The Q-20 isn't a "barge" like the Mk105 (actually a hydrofoil) the 53 bubbas as tow for influence sweeping. The Q-20 looks like a big torpedo and was towed behind the aircraft on a cable. Depending on the sonar mode you were using for the mine threat you were going after the Q-20 would be pulled at different depths. Deeper required more cable to be paid out. More cable caused an increase in tension required to pull the Q-20 which increased your power requirements. Higher speeds for different sonar modes also resulted in higher tension and more power.

It's been a few years so I'm rusty on the actual numbers, but we towed at 125' and between 12 and 20 or so KGS. Power required was often over 100% and I remember we recorded over 120% in certain regimes. With power requirements like this you were always worried about losing a motor. It never happened during the testing but we all thought about it constantly. We figured if you lost a motor upwind and could cut the gear quickly you might stay dry.

When you tow you want the Q-20 to be straight down the track and tracks aren't usually oriented with regards to the wind. To keep the Q-20 on track you often flew in uncoordinated flight (wing down, top rudder). Keeping the Q on track was a weird type of flying: You used the pedals to keep the Q behind the aircraft and the cyclic to control speed and heading. Q offset from the aircraft is measured by skew and you wanted to keep skew at 0, which equates to directly behind the aircraft. So you'd turn with cyclic and control skew with the pedals. Flying this way took a little while to get used to because it's so different, but once you got it it was ok. Flying down a long track could be trimmed but turns were very workload intensive and required the aircraft to be flown off of the instruments.

The pitch attitude was NOT like in Randy's picture. pitch was usually within a few degrees of level. Because of the uncoordinated flight profile, roll would often be 10 deg or so with the ball full out which made you feel like you were going to fall out of your seat.

Towing a search field was pretty boring; the HM guys call it sea farming for a reason. You fly long straight tracks until you hit your bingo. If you were going against bottom mines once you searched the field you'd switch noses on the Q for an EOID module which was essentially an underwater camera. You'd then tow the Q with the EOID module on it over suspected bottom mines to identify them as actual mines. The EOID missions were pretty fun to fly because it was challenging and you were trying to ID as many mines as possible so you'd fly tight racetracks over the suspected mine. It also took good CRM between the front and back to execute well.

I don't know how the 60R radar is over land. the money has been put in to optimize overwater performance since that's it's intended operating environment.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
EDIT2: Does the Romeo radar have any game overland? Probably stupid question, but I'm kinda dumb anyways.
Only for air contacts. The system does have a shoreline "recognition" database built in to help with coastal traffic/returns, but otherwise, it's just a big blob where there's land.
 

busdriver

Well-Known Member
None
Only for air contacts. The system does have a shoreline "recognition" database built in to help with coastal traffic/returns, but otherwise, it's just a big blob where there's land.
Well that sucks. Yeah I know, requirements, money, staffing, money, JROC, blah blah blah.

If it can do air contacts, would putting a Romeo on the ARG to act as a ghetto AEW platform be reasonable?
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Yes, with some limitations. One big one is how high it can go versus how much it can look up. And once you go into a turn, it can't really look up at all for a 180 degree sector. I'm not read in enough to know how much, if any, HSM is doing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.

As an aside, and I mentioned this earlier, but 10 years ago, there was this huge push to support ESGs with Bravos. The Bravos would be on CG that provided support for the LHx. Nowadays, the HSM community has really matured, but the current hotness is CVW ops, so there doesn't seem to be as much ESG support. Again, I don't know, so maybe someone here can chime in, but if they are doing ESG support, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more on the PAC side. I don't hear much about it on the East Coast.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
Yes, with some limitations. One big one is how high it can go versus how much it can look up. And once you go into a turn, it can't really look up at all for a 180 degree sector. I'm not read in enough to know how much, if any, HSM is doing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.

As an aside, and I mentioned this earlier, but 10 years ago, there was this huge push to support ESGs with Bravos. The Bravos would be on CG that provided support for the LHx. Nowadays, the HSM community has really matured, but the current hotness is CVW ops, so there doesn't seem to be as much ESG support. Again, I don't know, so maybe someone here can chime in, but if they are doing ESG support, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more on the PAC side. I don't hear much about it on the East Coast.
The ESG isn't used very much and seems to have fallen out of favor. I did three patrols with an ARG and we only operated as part of the ESG once for a short period.
 
Top