-
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
Flying Warrant: A success or failure?
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
I did fine in the program. Any delays/problems I had were medical related.
(I was dealing with a nasty divorce for most of my time in the TRACOM though, but I never canx'd a flight or anything like that)
(I was dealing with a nasty divorce for most of my time in the TRACOM though, but I never canx'd a flight or anything like that)
So is this a situation where the people who make decisions are not aware of this fact (hard to believe IMO), or just dont think the sacrifice of a dedicated HS/HSC det/sqdrn to NSW is equal to the benefits?
That's how it was when I was in HS. Many squadrons spent the time and built up a reputation with the teams, fun times.
I think lumpy summed it up. The Strike Group Commander doesn't want to lose an asset, and rightly so. Everyone bitches about helos being the bastard step-children of the air wing until someone goes in the water, or the need for a CSAR mission comes up. Not to mention the myriad of other missions flown every day by the attached helo squadron. From zero to hero in seconds....
Sure the Strike Group Commander maybe, but I suppose I dont understand the reasoning of NOT having something similar to 160th.
The biggest reason may be money, but with the explosion in LDHD communities particularly NSW it seems that the money would be rather easy to find.
The biggest reason may be money, but with the explosion in LDHD communities particularly NSW it seems that the money would be rather easy to find.
WARNING OFFENSIVE POST FOLLOWS (IT INCLUDES TRUTH)
Some major threadjackage going on here... Organic asset versus a dedicated NSW asset. Pure speculation on my part here- The SGC says "Frogs, we will help you when we can but I own my helos". I guess this is the reason why we have HCS-84?
I personally was not a huge fan of HS taking over the NSW/CSAR mission until I became goggle/crew chief qualed and flew a few missions. I also did not see the advantage of having the Firehawks flying a dedicated mission. I was around when they were pretty high on themselves and one night literally briefed "you may not be as fast as us, or as good as us but just flash your anti-smacks and we will slow down for you". Then proceeded to fly an aircraft into the wires.
Disclaimer- this post may offend someone.
First off is money. There was a fight to get this capability years ago. The SEALS (and SOCOM) were saying they just wanted dedicated helos. The Navy says it will be a "SOF peculiar" capability (new squadrons and career path) therefore SOCOM will have to pay with MFP-11 money. SOCOM balked at paying the bill.
So, the SEALS do not get dedicated helos.
The Navy is reluctant to pursue a TF-160 like concept due to money, time and mission. The time to become a mission pilot in TF-160 is long. Two years training after you get accepted. Then two years as an H2P with TF 160. After that, you may be allowed to sit for HAC. (These numbers are a bit dated, so they may have changed) To apply you already needed to bea a HAC with mission quals from your previous tours.
The Navy doesn't do 4+ years flying tours for officers.
So, once you get these units, how do you develop a career path for the pilots? You just can't have a bunch of guys roll in for 2 years and then go off to a staff/boat etc. You need to develop a cadre of expirieinced pilots for this mission. the training and equipment these guys will need is expensive and the Navy does not want to pay for it.
Finally does it support Big Navy's mission? Not really. Overland SOF aviation is not a requirement for the Navy's mission (I realize there will be disagreement with this statement) but in DODD 5100.1 the funtion of the Navy is:
provide forces to seek out and destroy enemy naval forces and to suppress enemy sea commerce, to gain and maintain general naval supremacy, to control vital sea areas and to protect vital sea lines of communication, to establish and maintain local superiority (including air) in an area of naval operations, to seize and defend advanced naval bases, and to conduct such land, air, and space operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign.
I don't see the justification for the time, money, effort and manpower that creating a unit similiar to TF-160 for the Navy.
If SEALs are feet dry hanging out with all their other SOCOM buddies then they aren't really supporting a Naval mission set. And if that's the case then they should also have use of SOCOM's organic helos (TF160) so there'd be no need for Navy helos to go along (other than it being cool).
84's mission hasn't been to just support the SEALs when they've been in country. They've basically just been more helicopters for the SOCOM folks to draw from.
Somehow IA's and GSA's don't seem to fit that mission either, yet as per the PERS website filling them is the #1 manning priority. Just saying.
This seems like a lot like the commerce clause in the constitution. Vague, and therefore up for interpretation.
Im not arguing with your point, but if it comes down to a strict definition of the Navy's mission as outlined in DODD 5100.1 and we argue that SOF air support does not support the mission, then it could also be argued that much of what NSW does in general does not support the Navy's mission.
Sure shooting pirates off the back of ships, and defending oil platforms is definitely in support of a naval campaign... but does SEAL teams running around in Afghanistan (a land locked country) directly support the prosecution of a naval campaign? Well the argument could go either way. But if you argue that NSW in 'stan is legit, then you could easily argue that dedicated support for the teams also fits in there.
I'm certainly not trying to bite off more than I can chew. I'm a multi-engine stud with no wings, no deployments, etc. But after talking to a lot of HS/HSC guys about their NSW support experience (all of them LOVE IT, and wish they could do it all the time), and getting the impression that they often feel they are not as proficient as maybe the should be or would like to be... I suppose I lean more towards the idea that given the special nature of the teams they should get some special support. They already do in the form of the special boat teams, why not aviation?
Yeah? But what if you can't do either one very well? Do you practice the one that you might actually use during a deployment or attack Norfolkistan again?
Well if you have guys that are unsafe at the boat, then that's a bigger issue. HSC (exp or cvw) isn't going to be all VERTREP and SAR anymore, and we have to train to that. If you build your flying abilities around dynamic training events, whether it's night terf, HVBSS, ASU etc it makes you a more well rounded pilot and makes the routine stuff easier.
Ironic that you are complaining about getting away from "basic" flying when you have a picture of a Hellfire shoot as your avatar. Time to grow as a community, and things like being able to land on a boat need to be automatic as a helicopter pilot.
FWIW, the 160th didn't seem to have any trouble operating off a small boy on short notice.
Pilot experience and total flight hours might have something to do with that. A nugget naval aviator with a few years (including those in flight school and FRS), a logbook still counting hundreds of hours, and one or no deployments is still on a steep learning curve vs somebody with several years years, thousands of hours, multiple deployments... Even so, the unfortunate and inescapable fact is no amount of being good makes anyone immune to hazards at the boat (reference- USNS Arctic/160th HVBSS mishap a year ago).