http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3090436&C=navwar
Interesting article on the future of the Helo Master Plan.
Interesting article on the future of the Helo Master Plan.
-
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
Congress looks at Helo Master Plan
- Thread starter S.O.B.
- Start date
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
The retired Admiral is asking many of the same questions that those of us flying the 60s did.
The "One Helo To Rule Them All" is not a good plan IMHO.
Same as making ALL JETS some form of -18 (yeah, the JSF is coming, so is Christmas)
The "One Helo To Rule Them All" is not a good plan IMHO.
Same as making ALL JETS some form of -18 (yeah, the JSF is coming, so is Christmas)
Not when you're busy FCFing it from Phase to Phase.
No really, the cost of the 53 maintenance cost to flight hour ratio is looking a lot like the F14 one before congress decided to end their reign too.
The Marines are getting the 53K online and with the newer joint operations, you're looking at less Navy requirement for heavy lift.
With the sundown of HC-4, the only 53s left in the Navy are for sled dragging/anti-mine, and they're on the brink of bringing those to the H-60S.
I'm not against the master plan...especially since helo aviation is such a growth community. Plus...a helo is a helo...it's all ball bearings now-a-days.
On a separate note...wow, in 6 months, 40k posts. I have a lot of reading to do
Loves,
~D
Yeah, for a master helo, the 60 is not the best decision. Sadly I think in the future we will be reaping the pain of being stuck with this platform for the next 20-30 years. Especially with all of the concessions that are being made on the models we are stuck with.
I've heard through the grapevine that the Navy has remotely considered the 53K. It may be a "let's let the Marines do all the work and we'll buy in later" but that's what I've heard. As for heavy lift, I wouldn't imagine Marine 53's would be readily available to run -18 engines, etc, out to the carrier whenever needed.
Curious about HC-4, do you know who is absorbing the missions that they had?
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
FWIW - PMA-261 is headed up by a US Navy Capt. The Marines may be doing "all the work" but it's still being paid for by the Navy... There is a lot of discussion down here about the Navy eventually getting some version of the K. Nothing official though.
Not when you're busy FCFing it from Phase to Phase.
No really, the cost of the 53 maintenance cost to flight hour ratio is looking a lot like the F14 one before congress decided to end their reign too.
The Marines are getting the 53K online and with the newer joint operations, you're looking at less Navy requirement for heavy lift.
With the sundown of HC-4, the only 53s left in the Navy are for sled dragging/anti-mine, and they're on the brink of bringing those to the H-60S.
I'm not against the master plan...especially since helo aviation is such a growth community. Plus...a helo is a helo...it's all ball bearings now-a-days.
On a separate note...wow, in 6 months, 40k posts. I have a lot of reading to do
Loves,
~D
Completely inaccurate gouge, Chunks, on the remaining Navy 53E fleet. Dudes are deployed in Asia and the middle East doing mostly logistics and heavy lift support with the 53. Big money is being spent for modernization and whatnot. I don't think the HC-4 decomm is going to affect Navy heavy lift what-so-ever. HM-14 and HM-15 can and have done 4's mission all along. See that it was HC-4 that went away and not 14 and 15.
As I write this post, there is no replacement for the 53.
"They" are looking at Sikorsky to see if the K model can be used by the Navy for the AMCM mission and heavy lift missions.
The current 53s are relatively young for navy a/c most having less than 6000 hours. The 53 may have the highest DLR cost over even overall most epensive program cost, but it's only on a small population of aircraft....not the hundred or so F-14s that once flew.
If any of you HT bubbs are concerned about this stuff, drop me a line. We need more HM folks in the HTs to get the right info out.
The fleet is already feeling the pain of going with the 60 for everything. just look at the problems the 60S is having with maintenance. the legacy platforms have a higher FMC rate than the new birds.
That'll happen when you put a head on an airframe not designed for it.
I don't know the answer to this question. Maybe lowflier or some other HT IP has some gouge on this. I would guess there are not that many per fiscal year as the production requirement has gone down with the HC-4 decomm.
I don't think the slots are that popular because of bad gouge out there about 53s. Maybe it's because of the Norfolk thing or ignorance about the mine countermeasures mission. I don't know. I think we may have 1 HM 53 guy down at the HTs. The other 53 guys, if they are still there are probably getting ready to leave soon and don't know about the HM side of things. If I'm incorrect, please let me know.
Again, if you guys want the scoop on 53s, drop me a line. I can tell you it's one of the better deals of the helo Navy. Some shipboard ops, but mostly land based dets and some per-diem to boot. Great and capable aircraft as well. I hope some are showing up the fleet fly in this year.