HCS-5 Re-established

[bubblehead]

I have no idea where this best fits... Anyways... This was posted on another site and might be of interest:

The HSC 85 High Rollers will officially become the new FIREHAWKS on 8 July, 2011.

 

[Gatordev]

I have no idea where this best fits... Anyways... This was posted on another site and might be of interest:

The HSC 85 High Rollers will officially become the new FIREHAWKS on 8 July, 2011.

I'm pretty sure they're staying HSC-85, just adopting the namesake.

 

[helolumpy]

They picked up the CSAR/NSW mission that HCS-5 had and HSC-84 has.
New mission, new call sign, but keeping the same "number".

I am curious is they will adopt the HCS-5 squadron lineage or keep the HC-85 / HSC-85 history or both...

 

[Pags]

They're also ditching their 60Ss for 60Hs.

 

[SynixMan]

They're also ditching their 60Ss for 60Hs.

Is that a step back for that mission?

 

[llnick2001]

Already using Firehawk on the radio. And no, it isn't a step back at all (IMHO, of course).

 

[helolumpy]

Is that a step back for that mission?

They have redundancy aircraft-wise with HSC-84 who is doing the same mission. That will make rotational dets with the sister squadron more manageable from a parts perspective.

Due to the transition of HS squadrons there are a lot of HOTELs available while the Block 3 SIERRAs are all promised to the transitioning HS squadrons. So if you want to transition the squadron and make it operational sooner, going to the HH was logical. If they didn't go to the HH, then the HS squadron transition would be slid to the right to account for the addition need of a dozen or so aircraft.

 

[xmid]

Our skipper told us that part of the reason we have too many aircraft (Sierras) is because they were slated for 84/85 and they don't want them anymore. Did they not take the reserve NSW squadrons in to account with the purchase plan?

 

[insanebikerboy]

The SEALS wanted the 60H, not the 60S. That's why 84 and 85 went with those.

 

[highside7r]

The SEALS wanted the 60H, not the 60S. That's why 84 and 85 went with those.

Seems to me having 2 larger cabin doors would be more ideal for their needs.

 

[BACONATOR]

The SEALS wanted the 60H, not the 60S. That's why 84 and 85 went with those.

Yeah, I haven't heard about that. What was the justification?

 

[wlawr005]

The SEALS wanted the 60H, not the 60S. That's why 84 and 85 went with those.

No SEAL team I ever worked with voiced that opinion.

 

[Pags]

Already using Firehawk on the radio. And no, it isn't a step back at all (IMHO, of course).

The SEALS wanted the 60H, not the 60S. That's why 84 and 85 went with those.

I know 84 has never had any desire to ditch their Hotels for Sierras. I think the double door, MTS, and Link16 would capabilities they'd want, but apparently not.

 

[1rotorhead]

all of the new gear mentioned is great stuff, but i'd still prefer the HH. Of course we'd love the MTS and Link, but in the HH. HH is better suited to the mission 84/85 has been doing for the last 8 years. For any advantage you can say the S has, you can counter it with an HH advantage.

 

[Gatordev]

The SEALS wanted the 60H, not the 60S. That's why 84 and 85 went with those.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it went down.

Every -4/-5 guy I've talked to wanted the Hotel over the Sierra. Initially even hscs (the user here) was pro-Sierra (you can search for "tailwheel") but I think he even changed his mind (can't find a post to back that up, though).