H-92 for Navy?

[squorch2]

If MIW is such a valuable mission, then put the assets that can best handle it to the problem - the MCMs (or some future LCS with a MIW package.) They sweep 24/7, vice the on-station time and aircraft availability issues that plague the 60S and 53E, respectively. Just because a mission CAN be done by an airborne asset doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done with an airborne asset. Furthermore, in our own lessons learned from Desert Storm the Navy said that preventing mining - not eliminating mines - would be key to future successful engagements.

That being said, I think that having a reliable heavy VOD capability is something that big Navy doesn't want to do without. Whether it's a 53 variant or some other airframe, they'll keep it around.

 

[phrogpilot73]

They sweep 24/7, vice the on-station time and aircraft availability issues that plague the 60S and 53E, respectively.

That being said, I think that having a reliable heavy VOD capability is something that big Navy doesn't want to do without. Whether it's a 53 variant or some other airframe, they'll keep it around.

You realize that you just contradicted yourself, right?

 

[helolumpy]

That being said, I think that having a reliable heavy VOD capability is something that big Navy doesn't want to do without. Whether it's a 53 variant or some other airframe, they'll keep it around.

If the AMCM package for the 60S matures and works, the current plan is to retire the H-53 and the Navy will be without heavy-lift rotary wing aircraft.

At NHA the issue of heavy-lift for the Navy was posed to the flag pannel if the 53 is retired and the answer from the NAVAIR rep was that there is no planned replacement for that capability.
Not to say it won't change, as anything could happen, but that's where it stands right now.

 

[S.O.B.]

I personally don't think the towed systems (OASIS, Q-20) will ever work for the 60 the aircraft just doesn't have the power. I think the future is: UUVs for Hunting and H-60 AMNS/RAMICS for neutralization and of course to a lesser extent EOD. I'm not sure how the LCS influence sweeping systems are coming along but they'll certainly play a big part in the future of MIW. If the Kilo saves the 53 community then I would imagine we'll start developing or upgrading our existing systems Q-24 MK-105s or maybe even go with the Q-20, but who knows; I've heard class cockpits are going into the Echos so maybe they'll stick around longer then we think.

 

[illinijoe05]

If MIW is such a valuable mission, then put the assets that can best handle it to the problem - the MCMs (or some future LCS with a MIW package.) They sweep 24/7, vice the on-station time and aircraft availability issues that plague the 60S and 53E, respectively. Just because a mission CAN be done by an airborne asset doesn't mean that it SHOULD be done with an airborne asset. Furthermore, in our own lessons learned from Desert Storm the Navy said that preventing mining - not eliminating mines - would be key to future successful engagements.
.

Dude you still have no idea what you are talking about. Ever heard of a carbon burn, ever looked at the sweep speeds of MCM class ships, or their Average AsubO, or their capabilities against specific threats, just because they are MCM ships does not mean they are not capable of becoming a mine casualty.

 

[helolumpy]

Case in point: USS Tripoli was the flag ship for Airborne Mine Countermeasures in the Gulf when ironically she hit a mine!

 

[S.O.B.]

Dude you still have no idea what you are talking about. Ever heard of a carbon burn, ever looked at the sweep speeds of MCM class ships, or their Average AsubO, or their capabilities against specific threats, just because they are MCM ships does not mean they are not capable of becoming a mine casualty.

I think you're right and this guy doesn't know MIW but I would be careful throwing out Ao numbers, it's not like Big Iron and legacy systems are kicking ass in that department. Sure SMCM speeds are slow but it's nice to be able to detect, classify and engage at the same time.

 

[S.O.B.]

Case in point: USS Tripoli was the flag ship for Airborne Mine Countermeasures in the Gulf when ironically she hit a mine!

What's the point? It's not like they were sweeping in front of the ship when it struck the mine. If anything it highlights the importance of Mine Countermeasures.

 

[helolumpy]

What's the point? It's not like they were sweeping in front of the ship when it struck the mine. If anything it highlights the importance of Mine Countermeasures.

My respsone was directed towards Squorch 2, who's position is that the H-53 is required for heavy lift and the AMCM requirement is not important;

Horseshit. The last time we actually did MCM ops, AMCM accounted for 10% of all mines found. MCM and EOD were responsible for finding and clearing the vast majority of mines. (The General's War has specific numbers in its appendix.) Losing AMCM means that... well, that we lose 10% of MCM capability.

My point is simple, ships are vulnerable to mines, therefore we need airborne, surface and subsurface mine countermeasure capability. If the USS Tripoli can hit a mine while serving as a dedicated mine-warfare vessel, then every ship in the Navy is vulnerable to the threat. We can't rely on 14 Avenger class MCM ships to mitagate the threat.

 

[S.O.B.]

My point is simple, ships are vulnerable to mines, therefore we need airborne, surface and subsurface mine countermeasure capability. If the USS Tripoli can hit a mine while serving as a dedicated mine-warfare vessel, then every ship in the Navy is vulnerable to the threat. We can't rely on 14 Avenger class MCM ships to mitagate the threat.

I agree.

 

[S.O.B.]

You can always lay on a couple of extra helo flights for log runs, but if you lose the AMCM capability then you can impact military deployment and sustainment for a significant period of time while the MCM and EOD folks clear out the mines.

Not when the extra flights can't lift or fit the cargo and don't have the range to make the destination.

 

[S.O.B.]

Horseshit. The last time we actually did MCM ops, AMCM accounted for 10% of all mines found. MCM and EOD were responsible for finding and clearing the vast majority of mines. (The General's War has specific numbers in its appendix.) Losing AMCM means that... well, that we lose 10% of MCM capability.

What do you think 10% equals? If 10% equals a 10 day wait for a ship to transit, is that significant? What if that 10% was the only way you had to counter a specific threat?