Hmm, helos are more involved in combat?

[Brett327]

Dont forget that not too long ago we had more than just those 2 communities. We had HAL in Vietnam, HCS 4 and 5 in the decades following... And while Navy helos haven't been putting a ton of ordnance downrange, (at least in ways you read about because we happen to be the worst service when it comes to our own Public relations/media), thats not to say it's not needed or hasn't happened. Just look at Gulf War 1. We had to have the Brits come in and provide SSC and security because we didn't deem it "necessary" at the time to properly arm our helos or defend ourselves. Now at least it's become obvious that there is a need, but that doesn't mean we are putting the money where it's needed or even treating it properly.

Just wait until suicide Joe is on a mission in his little boat full of explosives to die for his beliefs by killing a few US servicemembers on a big gray boat. (Cause it's sure never happened before right?) But unfortunately the powers that be dont think we really need to let the helos fly with rounds in the guns, or maybe they shouldn't fly with any ammo at all, because just having some guns hanging off the helo will be a deterrence. (Haven't heard that logic before right?) Pretty sure the fact that he's on a suicide mission means he doesn't care what the helo looks like, he's expecting to die anyway, except now we've just given him a free run at us. Or maybe its not 1 suicide Joe, it's him and his 30 friends. You think we're gonna have pointy nose aircraft airborne already? maybe launch them in time? or maybe recall them in time to stop the attack?

This kind of stupidity is still happening and logic like Brett's is part of the problem. Unfortunately it's obvious that some people dont care to listen or reexamine their beliefs and will continue on the same path...

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just making an observation, and it's fairly clear from my experience and your lamenting that those in the Navy helo community consider themselves second class citizens. I mean, you certainly sound as though you're treated that way. I'm not sure why you feel the need to lump the blame on me though. I'm not responsible for your woes.

 

[Renegade One]

It was actually only about 1/3 of an AM. ...I told them to use my HS-4 flights because I thought what I did with them was cool. Plus I'll admit to thinking it would be somewhat unique for a NFO to have an HS squadron in the citation.

Yeah, especially as a "door gunner". Waay cool...

To It was actually only about 1/3 of an AM. The other 2/3 was over Bosnia with my VP squadron. The citation continues "during Operation Desert Storm and with Patrol Squadron SIXTEEN during Operation...." (I forget what Bosnia was called, it changed names about 3 times during the time I flew there.)

Operations DETERMINED FORCE? DELIBERATE FORCE? JOINT GUARDIAN? Any of those ring a bell?

 

[RobLyman]

Back to the point of the article. I really don't think Navy helos were what he had in mind.

Brownout landings are scary. While some are almost a non-event, the worse of them ranks clearly above night unaided small deck landings on my pucker meter. Medevac pickups along an MSR at night after an MRAP hits an IED/EFP add obstacles, urgency, and enemy threat to the hazard of extremely low visibility/dust landings.
If you want to up the risk factor for fixed wing so it matches what the Army helos did in Iraq and are doing in Afghanistan, aim indirect fire on the carrier and put small boats at the transom to provide small arms fire. Put some open sacks of talcum power on the transom to obscure the visibility on short final too. Randomly throw in some powerlines and a burning MRAP. One or more of these factors were present on most missions we launched on or within the previous 48 hours.

It is great that the helos don't have to also contend with an air-to-air threat due to the money spent on FW capabilities. No one can deny that is a result of the money poured into FW platform development. But after air superiority/supremacy is achieved, the helos continue to operate in a combat environment from takeoff to landing. Its clear that at least some of the FW bubbas on this forum are not privy to the threat briefings oriented to the low level fliers. Suffice it to say that helos (at least Army) were operating in a threat environment right up to the last days in Iraq and are still threatened in Afghanistan.

I believe the point of the article was to show that in recent/current conflicts, helos continue to operate in a threat environment long after the FW assets are relegated to operating in a relatively safe environment. The amount of time operating in a threat environment is disproportionate, maybe even the opposite to the proportion of spending on FW vs RW. I believe the point is accurate and valid, but maybe not so much with regard to the way Navy helos are used in general.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Suffice it to say that helos (at least Army) were operating in a threat environment right up to the last days in Iraq and are still threatened in Afghanistan.

Not just Army bro... Marines too...

 

[HAL Pilot]

Operations DETERMINED FORCE? DELIBERATE FORCE? JOINT GUARDIAN? Any of those ring a bell?

Just got home and looked at the citation. Decisive Endeavor.

 

[busdriver]

Catmando, I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure Roger Locher was happy to see an AF rescue helo 25nm outside of Hanoi. But your point about how dangerous is was for helos to operate in the North is well taken. Then again, we've learned a thing or two since then, mainly due to those old guys' sacrifices. That others may live.....

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Pfft, most helos can't even do barrel rolls or loops or anything cool. LLL CAS isn't nearly as sexy as Blue Angles going upsides-down!

 

[insanebikerboy]

LLL CAS isn't nearly as sexy as Blue Angles going upsides-down!

Well, it's obvious, LLL CAS is so damn dark that no one can see you anyways so of course it's not sexy!

 

[Praying4OCS]

The number one killer for us has been due to degraded SA, especially in a task saturated environment. Yet is amazes me that we have few technological advances in place to help with that (minus that wonderful robotic voice). We operate so close to the ground and rarely transit from NAVAID to NAVAID. For example something as simple as a moving map, not even to navigate with, would increase SA exponentially. Hell, my $200 phone has a moving map yet my $30 mil helo does not.

The way that the Navy Helo community (primarily CVW Sierra and Romeo types) is trying to put more missions on the plate will cause the need for change. Its only been a couple years at most that S & R have been deploying on a carrier together. There's a lot of new technology many are still unaware of in those platforms (ex: Link 16, M-197, UGR, etc) There are three Sierra squadrons (I know of) deploying with either the M-197 and/or the LAU 61 UGR within the next six months. Yes, we do use the grease pencil aiming system haha Though, they're only rumors now the current talk is two land based dets off the carrier..... GOPLAT defense and straits transit defense.

I believe when push comes to shove things will be noticed more.

 

[Catmando]

Catmando, I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure Roger Locher was happy to see an AF rescue helo 25nm outside of Hanoi. But your point about how dangerous is was for helos to operate in the North is well taken. Then again, we've learned a thing or two since then, mainly due to those old guys' sacrifices. That others may live.....

Please. No need to beg. Nor do we even differ.

I'll admit I may have been a bit too parochial in limiting my statements to HC-7. Indeed the AF involvement in the epic rescue of Roger Locher was one of the very best of the war.

Nevertheless, it was one of the few extreme exceptions. And its exception did not prove the rule of helos not flying over the North.

BT

As an aside, and FWIW..... Be it fixed-wing or helo, we have been most fortunate to not have faced anywhere near the enemy surface-to-air defenses of the magnitude that surrounded North Vietnam supported by the Soviets. Indeed although SAC thought their B-52s were invincible with their advanced ECM, they lost 15 B-52s in 11 days. Helos were not there.

 

[MIDNJAC]

For example something as simple as a moving map, not even to navigate with, would increase SA exponentially. Hell, my $200 phone has a moving map yet my $30 mil helo does not.

FWIW, at night on goggles (or not), I deselect the moving map cause there is no way to dim it down enough. And the only "navigation" I have ever used it for (at least the map part) is to stay within various airspace boundaries depicted by a sequence. The resolution is just not good enough to really gain any useful information from it, aside from general orientation to the coastline, or maybe MOA/WA/R airspace boundaries. I still pull up TACANs and I don't really reference the map at all. In fact, I guess I deselect it a fair amount during the day just to reduce the clutter. What I will say that we have which is nice and sounds like you don't have, is a L16 enhanced "SA" display. That part is money, moving map overlay or not.

 

[phrogdriver]

Moving map with DTED and HAT (co-altitude or above terrain highlighted) overlay, or DTED sun/shade (kind of a pseudo 3D) with HAT overlay are F'ing MONEY on low levels. Well worth it.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Moving map with DTED and HAT (co-altitude or above terrain highlighted) overlay, or DTED sun/shade (kind of a pseudo 3D) with HAT overlay are F'ing MONEY on low levels. Well worth it.

I'll buy that. We have only recently gotten HAT and it is only authorized with good DTED so I don't really reference it that much but yeah, I could see how that would be invaluable for the helo folk

 

[Lawman]

Its really kinda pitiful how far behind everybody else is on moving map with DTED and programable navigation.... Its been in the Apache since 1994. Not to say its your communities fault but every time I escort somebody that isnt a F or G model Chinook its telling how much they have to rely on RTD Cards on a kneeboard. We watch them fly from Nav reference making what to us seem like pointless heading changes adding time and fuel burned to a route when we can just go direct to whatever grid I need to and it gives me not only a heading but a time enroute and a time on target computed using my current ground speed. Thats one of the reasons we laugh at the Lift guys when they give us a 50 page kneeboard packet and act like its gonna be hard to be TOT +/-30 seconds... with the Navigation I have available the helicopter pretty much does it for me.

 

[Pugs]

As an aside, and FWIW..... Be it fixed-wing or helo, we have been most fortunate to not have faced anywhere near the enemy surface-to-air defenses of the magnitude that surrounded North Vietnam supported by the Soviets. Indeed although SAC thought their B-52s were invincible with their advanced ECM, they lost 15 B-52s in 11 days.

True on the SAMS and we now have the weapons to stay above the AAA and still get good hits. Also a lot more serious about EW.

SAC leadership should have been crucified for the mandated tactics and I believe they were not allowed to use the "A game" WARM EW they had so they didn't give away capability when it came time to take the portable suns down range to the land of the bear.