HCS-5 Re-established

[insanebikerboy]

I dunno, maybe I was told wrong, but the story I relayed was directly from guys in 84 now and also from guys who were there when it was HCS-4.

 

[SQUIDutah]

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

They look cooler without the pilot doors taken off? :icon_smil

 

[Gatordev]

I dunno, maybe I was told wrong, but the story I relayed was directly from guys in 84 now and also from guys who were there when it was HCS-4.

Maybe it was a chicken and egg thing.

 

[torpedo0126]

It was communicated to me that when they originally transitioned from HH to S, the older HH was still incredibly tactically superior to the Block 1 Sierra. There were not enough block 3bs to go around so the decision was made to transition back to the Hotel. Two people I know heading to 85 said that that they will definitely be transitioning back to the Sierra once there are more Block 3bs to go around. Again, that is hand me down knowledge.

 

[Pags]

It was communicated to me that when they originally transitioned from HH to S, the older HH was still incredibly tactically superior to the Block 1 Sierra. There were not enough block 3bs to go around so the decision was made to transition back to the Hotel. Two people I know heading to 85 said that that they will definitely be transitioning back to the Sierra once there are more Block 3bs to go around. Again, that is hand me down knowledge.

Yeah, the Blk I Seirra is pretty much just a trash hauler and DDA bird. HSC-85 was able to use them in their old range support / bambi bucket reserve mission, but the Blk Is do not have the capabilities such as ASE and MTS that 84/85 would require.

I've also heard some hate and discontent about how the Sierra handles flight plans / DAFIF in the cockpit, but a lot of the old limitations are gone in new software drops and moving map will only increase the capability of the Sierra.

 

[1rotorhead]

I've heard that for 7 years now and am still waiting on real improvements. You would think software upgrades would be easy but over 7 years later the S software is still inferior.

Yeah, the Blk I Seirra is pretty much just a trash hauler and DDA bird. HSC-85 was able to use them in their old range support / bambi bucket reserve mission, but the Blk Is do not have the capabilities such as ASE and MTS that 84/85 would require.

I've also heard some hate and discontent about how the Sierra handles flight plans / DAFIF in the cockpit, but a lot of the old limitations are gone in new software drops and moving map will only increase the capability of the Sierra.

 

[torpedo0126]

Yeah, the Blk I Seirra is pretty much just a trash hauler and DDA bird. HSC-85 was able to use them in their old range support / bambi bucket reserve mission, but the Blk Is do not have the capabilities such as ASE and MTS that 84/85 would require.

I've also heard some hate and discontent about how the Sierra handles flight plans / DAFIF in the cockpit, but a lot of the old limitations are gone in new software drops and moving map will only increase the capability of the Sierra.

And then there is the fact that Block 1s, unless they have been factory modified, cannot carry aux tanks, leaving them pretty fuel limited.

 

[hscs]

Well, let me list - 60S: no GAU-17, a horrible system to utilize guns (aka - we didn't buy USAF 60G universal mount for M240/GAU-2/.50 Cal), severe mission planning issues, loss of cabin space with additional fuel, and only 2 x ARC210s.

HH - GAU17, 3 x ARC210s, BFT (with integrated map), a bigger display for the FLIR, short wheel base for CRUDES ops, and a Commodore 64 era mission planning system that beats the hell out of the 60S

It is just me - but I am buying off the used car lot.

 

[bert]

The Sierra really struggled with OT in these areas, but the reality is that the Romeo functionality was more important to the common cockpit, and the mission isn't as important to Big Navy as it is to the given communities. The SEAL's aren't arguing H vs. S, they are choosing 160th over anybody else.

 

[1rotorhead]

when they actually get a choice. also depends on the mission.

The Sierra really struggled with OT in these areas, but the reality is that the Romeo functionality was more important to the common cockpit, and the mission isn't as important to Big Navy as it is to the given communities. The SEAL's aren't arguing H vs. S, they are choosing 160th over anybody else.

 

[RotorHead04]

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

If you ask a SEAL, they want two doors. They really dislike that aspect of Hotel.

If you ask a Pilot, the maturity of the Hotel and its weapon system makes it more desirable right now. The key is "right now". Sooner or later, the Sierra will completely replace the Hotel ...

As far as the "all SEALs want 160th" comment I read, again, I would counter: SEALs want dedicated air assets. They see the 160th and ask why the Navy doesn't have the same thing. Vanilla SEALs would be happy with consistent support, both at home and abroad. The only guys who enjoy regular support from 160th are Tier 1 folks.

Until there is CNO with a Trident, none of this is likely to change ...

 

[xmid]

The SEAL captain at the NHA symposium briefed that they wanted to shift to using more organic rotor-wing assets. He said The Teams desire the ability and comfortability working with Navy helo squadrons so that they could eventually use us on an as needed basis depending on deployed locations. And he specifically said he was not talking about 84/85.

 

[Pags]

Well, let me list - 60S: no GAU-17, a horrible system to utilize guns (aka - we didn't buy USAF 60G universal mount for M240/GAU-2/.50 Cal), severe mission planning issues, loss of cabin space with additional fuel, and only 2 x ARC210s.

HH - GAU17, 3 x ARC210s, BFT (with integrated map), a bigger display for the FLIR, short wheel base for CRUDES ops, and a Commodore 64 era mission planning system that beats the hell out of the 60S

It is just me - but I am buying off the used car lot.

Thank you for the clear and succinct argument. That's much better and makes a lot of sense than most of the other meat headed replies I've got over the years as to why 84 prefers the 60H over the 60S.

 

[torpedo0126]

Well, let me list - 60S: no GAU-17, a horrible system to utilize guns (aka - we didn't buy USAF 60G universal mount for M240/GAU-2/.50 Cal), severe mission planning issues, loss of cabin space with additional fuel, and only 2 x ARC210s.

HH - GAU17, 3 x ARC210s, BFT (with integrated map), a bigger display for the FLIR, short wheel base for CRUDES ops, and a Commodore 64 era mission planning system that beats the hell out of the 60S

It is just me - but I am buying off the used car lot.

I am asking these questions because I honestly just don't know, not trying to argue...

Whats the advantage of the Gau-17 over x2 Gau-21s??

What exactly are the MPS limitations of the 60S?

How does the loss of cabin space of a 60S w/ one internal aux tank compare to the comparatively reduced cabin space of a 60H with larger internal tanks (I know the syntax of that sentence is awful...)??

How much bigger is the 60H flir display?

Thanks

 

[Scoob]

Independent of the SEALs desires, I will say that thus far I'm really disappointed in the fact that I have to pause in the checklist to wait for the Sierra's computers to catch up.