• 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

Should I stay or should I go? Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love HSC.

RedFive

RedFive

Well-Known Member
pilot
None
Contributor
Meyerkord said:
I'm coming up on selection in a few weeks so this has been on my mind a lot lately.
Click to expand...
The Sierra is fun to fly because of the power to weight ratio, but you are in a very fortunate position that many of us were not: You have an insight into what HSC will be doing in the future.

So you can choose a community that is downsizing, has little to no identity, and one in which you know you have a high chance of flying the MQ-8.

OR

HSM
 
H

hewcs

Member
pilot
Our last two LHD dets were OIC, 4 HACs, 5 2Ps, 10 aircrewmen. 55 total size. Plenty of ULT as long as you have a good relationship with ship CO. That will not be the case with a CVN det. 12 hr flight window + Alert 30 day and night eats up those 5 crews. Need more crews or change doctrine.

And HSC isn't safe on LHA/Ds. Plenty of chatter about putting 4 60s onboard, 2 Sierra/2 Romeo.

And while we all laugh at mighty Firescoot, FVL will be MUMT. HSM has about a decade and change or so before all RW merges
 
zippy

zippy

Freedom!
pilot
Contributor
RedFive said:
Helicopter Shitshow Central, A Recapitulation:
HC gets the MH-60S instead of an updated CH-46.
HSL upgrades to a very capable MH-60R and becomes HSM.
HS jumps on the MH-60S, increases its capabilities tenfold (Hellfire/APKWS/M197/.50cal+7.62 mgs), and merges with HC, thus forming HSC.

Meanwhile, the smart folks at HSM are playing the long game. Somehow or another, HSM manages to get a foothold on the CVN while still maintaining their long-held position on the small boys. Now there are two helicopter squadrons on the CVN, but HSC isn't utilized for the missions they've trained for. Whether that's because the Air Boss' only concern is maintaining the SAR bird, or because of poor messaging about capabilities, I don't know. I believe it's a combination.

The Rub:
Today I get a text from a buddy waiting for the hotseat at the FRS in the middle of his CAT-other syllabus: The Navy's new plan for HSC is to reduce CVN squadrons by half and decrease their footprint on the CVN to a 3-plane DET in order to increase F-35 numbers. HSM will remain onboard in full.

I'm all for more F-35s, let there be no mistake that this is not my complaint. What this boils down to is that HSC leadership has rendered themselves insignificant. Through a series of events, they allowed the HSM community to bamboozle them off the CVN. HS's "bread and butter," the CVN -- stolen in plain sight by HSM. And the worst part is, HSC deserves it. I'm not even mad at HSM, HSC did it to themselves. HS should have bought a combination of Sierras and Romeos if it was really that essential to have both capabilities of the Fox/Hotel. For whatever reason, they ended up with the Sierra and made some poor decisions. Testing a RADAR on the Sierra and not going through with it. Taking on MQ-8 after HSM had already discarded it. Not effectively advertising the new Sierra capabilities to the fleet. Taking on ALL the missions and being "okay" instead of excelling at a few.

So now what? What's to become of HSC CVN? 3 plane dets? They will never, ever, ever take an armed section into combat with only 3 aircraft on the boat. Planeguard has to happen, we all know that. And God knows any helicopter is going to need a backup, preferably two. Meanwhile, HSC Expeditionary is still slogging it out on the LHD and is committed to support LCS -- will one of those platforms get taken from them? Sadly, a combined Sierra/Romeo squadron, a la HMLA, would be the most capable configuration, but the Navy will never get past the rice bowls to make it happen.

This is why HSC WTIs and FRS instructors jumped ship. This is why is it no longer necessary to follow the golden path to HSC DH.

TL;DR:
View attachment 26846
Click to expand...

The ability to stream video and put stuff into link for all to view wins over everyone more than having a plethora of capabilities on paper. How are the CSG players going to take credit for being the mastermind of anything if they can’t stream the video to their bosses?

HSC is great for delivering mail and ice cream, starboard D and taking folks to the small boy. You only need two helos and a spare to accomplish those things normally, and with HSM onboard you can really go down to on “up” 60S for periods. As a bonus HSC can be used for FAC/FIAC deterrence with the armed helo kits they got. Overland has been and always will be a pipe dream. Lots of platforms/communities do it and do it better without pulling much needed logistical assets from the strike group, or requiring a boat to enter an ASCM WEZ to launch/recover/wait for the helo to get shot down. Community performance has been somewhat underwhelming during the limited land based CSAR opportunities it’s been given, which only re-enforces the idea that it’s not really needed and the community shouldn’t be straying too far from the boat.

There won’t be much overland CSAR against adversaries in WESTPAC and that’s where renewed focus seems so be going looking toward the future.
 
loadtoad

loadtoad

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
zippy said:
Community performance has been somewhat underwhelming during the limited land based CSAR opportunities it’s been given, which only re-enforces the idea that it’s not really needed and the community shouldn’t be straying too far from the boat.

There won’t be much overland CSAR against adversaries in WESTPAC and that’s where renewed focus seems so be going looking toward the future.
Click to expand...

Please point me toward the AAR you read, or provide examples as to what you are talking about.

Second part - You're right on the focus, but writing out overland CSAR as a capability and is a lesson we in Naval RW have learned many times before and the people making these decisions are inept due to their ignorance. What if Jack is 3 miles inland on an Island? "Sorry guys, I am not trained to overland". What if he is on the beach... "hell guys I have never done a brown out so can you have him swim out a few miles". Where do we draw the line? Well, what will happen is we will still go, but now with ill trained helicopter crews at a much higher risk.

The history of Navy RW CSAR is riddled with leaders and strategists making stupid assumptions about the future, giving up a capability, only to need that capability again after learning through the loss of good people. After the Korean War there was no investment into it and eventually Naval RW found themselves in Vietnam learning on the fly. Post Vietnam again we let the capability largely go away and we had Grenada, Lebanon, Libya. Many of those actions were covered with ill-trained crews and aircraft. Yes HS was around but in many cases not in position to cover those actions. And USAF ARS/RQS units were not always in place quick enough (or available) From there Desert Storm, Bosnia, OEF/OIF/OIR, etc.

It needs to be a clear that, HSC had no doctrinal place in OEF/OIF/OIR (with some limited exceptions). As much as we all wanted to be in the fight, it wasn't a Navy RW fight. Lots of GWOT baby's joined the wrong branch if that's what they wanted. To put in perspective:

Afghanistan coast: 0 mi
Iraqi coast: 36 mi

Iranian coast: 1750 mi
Russian coast: 23,400 mi
Chinese coast: 9,000 mi

Yes A2AD and the tyranny of distance will have massive affects on if we (or anybody) can make it overland in the opening days of peer MCO fight, but what about 30 days in, 60 days, 1 year. And before we start playing the game of "it will be over by then so we don't need to plan for it" I refer back to history with WW I, WW II, Vietnam, etc. Many of those same assumptions were made.

To all the fixed wing nerds, have fun knowing the Navy isn't coming to get you if you bail out over land. And before you say "but the Air Force" let me stop right there and let you know they aren't everywhere the Navy is and they will have their hands full. I would be irate if I was a Fighter Attack Guy.
 
loadtoad

loadtoad

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Meyerkord said:
Just wanted to thank you guys for reviving this thread. I'm coming up on selection in a few weeks so this has been on my mind a lot lately.

Does anyone know where I could find this new aviation plan/vision document? (The one that talks about reducing HSC CVN by 50%). I've heard instructors at the squadron talk about too, but I haven't been able to find a hard copy.
Click to expand...

RedFive said:
The Sierra is fun to fly because of the power to weight ratio, but you are in a very fortunate position that many of us were not: You have an insight into what HSC will be doing in the future.

So you can choose a community that is downsizing, has little to no identity, and one in which you know you have a high chance of flying the MQ-8.

OR

HSM
Click to expand...

RedFive hit the nail on the head and I've said this for years. The MH-60R is a true Naval helicopter with a true Navy mission. It is more important to "big Navy" and while I have deeply enjoyed my time in HSC, HSM is where the future is for a young aviator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top