Larger 60 Det on Amphib

[insanebikerboy]

Haha...what exactly would you call "prepping your weapon right"? When I was shooting the -240 that would include a thorough cleaning, oiling, spare barrels, and spare gas ports. Especially when firing blanks, because they gum up the gun. Why? Because the -240 would have feed issues if you didn't. It was especially suseptible at the highest rate of fire, which was why we generally used the middle setting. You guys already apparently know all that.

As always AW, someone got an opportunity to tell someone how fucked up they are because they disagree with something someone said.

Cool story bro...


I'm not a gunner and do not claim to be. However, in my previous squadron there were multiple issues with the 240 feeding, jamming, etc, and that was on flights shooting maybe 3-4 200 round cans. In my current squadron we go through thousands of rounds in a flight and rarely, if ever have issues.

Was it you, was it your gun? I don't know, I wasn't there, and I don't care. What I do know is that there are methods of setting up and employing a weapon (perhaps the same as what you did, perhaps it's different, maybe you had shitty guns that screwed you from the beginning) that enables damn near 100% up rate through thousands of rounds.

Maybe take a step back and realize that I'm not telling you that you are fucked up, what I'm saying is that there are different methods of doing something and if you were willing to accept that instead of responding like a dick, stuff would improve.

 

[wlawr005]

I hate to break it to you, but that may be a part user error and part a really worn gun. I've flown where we went through more than 6-7,000 rounds through the 240 in a single flight with no feed or other issues.

But you did start off by telling me I'm fucked up...bro.

 

[insanebikerboy]

But you did start off by telling me I'm fucked up...bro.

Sure man, if that's how you took it then you should probably reevaluate your take on constructive criticism. Good luck in your flying career.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

With only 2 60's onboard and one of those in the D. The other is not being used much due to the way we conduct/train for tactics. You can break this argument down a few different ways. Having a third allows you to work phases, flight time, etc in a much better way. If you have one in Phase then the other is 1 to make 1. That bird goes down and the heat is on the OIC because the ship still needs to meet the SAR matrix. But that is not what we are pushing, just an added benefit.

Using one in the D allows 2 for tactics. Whatever that may be. VBSS, ASUW, 240 or GAU, Hellfire, Rockets, Putting/investigating contacts in the link, streaming live video to the bridge. LHD Dets do a lot of training/HARP for deployment. Day night VBSS, a few trips to MUTC with the teams, workups with the MEU, etc. Then we actually deploy and it is "Here is your D, there are many like it but this one is yours".

This way they can have one in phase and two to make one for the d, amirite?

 

[wlawr005]

Sure man, if that's how you took it then you should probably reevaluate your take on constructive criticism. Good luck in your flying career.

Haha, thanks.

 

[busdriver]

The 240 wasn't designed to shoot on the large gas port when clean. That setting is for when the gun gets dirty and slows down.

Why can't the Hueys do VBSS? Just not a trained to mission set?

3-4 200 round cans is funny! My high count was 10k for my formation; full disclosure that's not normal outside of weapons school TDY to Boise. And suddenly I feel like a bragging douchebag...

 

[insanebikerboy]

The 240 wasn't designed to shoot on the large gas port when clean. That setting is for when the gun gets dirty and slows down.

Why can't the Hueys do VBSS? Just not a trained to mission set?

3-4 200 round cans is funny! My high count was 10k for my formation; full disclosure that's not normal outside of weapons school TDY to Boise. And suddenly I feel like a bragging douchebag...

3-4 200 round cans was fairly normal when I was active duty. The sad truth is that currency for regular Navy gunners is around 800-1000 rounds per quarter (can't remember the exact number). That is partly why regular Navy helos aren't considered as serious CAS assets.

Unfortunately, the Navy has added forward firing guns and rockets to the 60S which makes some dudes think that Navy 60s are now CAS assets. Again, the sad truth will be that the actual number of bullets allocated for practice will mean that the Navy H-60S will still be considered a second tier CAS asset at best.

 

[busdriver]

Dude, I didn't mean to poo poo anyone. The WIC det to Boise is a bit of a bacchanal of shooting. I think the historical average is 75k of .50cal in two weeks. All of that is shot at reactive scorable targets.

That said, being considered a viable CAS asset has more to do with understanding and complying with JCAS procedures. Your specific asset accuracy just informs the JTAC/FAC(A) to how close he can bring you to friendlies. PGMs can potentially reduce your required expenditures significantly, either you pushed the pickle button in parameters or you didn't.

When your only method of evaluating delivery is bullet impact, well you are going to have to shoot a lot.

 

[VF101GR]

The 240 wasn't designed to shoot on the large gas port when clean. That setting is for when the gun gets dirty and slows down.

Why can't the Hueys do VBSS? Just not a trained to mission set?

3-4 200 round cans is funny! My high count was 10k for my formation; full disclosure that's not normal outside of weapons school TDY to Boise. And suddenly I feel like a bragging douchebag...

UH-1Y's are extensively trained in the VBSS mission set, taking up a significant portion of our work up period. That said, they did interoperability training with our HSC det. specifically for an extended VBSS capability, in the event of disaggregate MEU operations with the little deck more than a days sail away.

I understand the argument to bring more 60's, i.e. an expanded capability for tactical operations, I just don't think its a good one. While yes, addherance to joint CAS procedures ultimately is what makes you a viable player...training and proficiency is what makes you a good player. I'm hard pressed to find 60 pilots that even know that there a multiple variants of AGM-114, much less tactical application and employment. But I'm a snake driver, and that's my job. If they asked me about VERTREP, I wouldn't have a clue how to execute. It's not my job. Bringing additional tactical capability to the ARG isn't a nessecarily a numbers question but providing 60's the opportunity to get out on the range and the ammo to train to that mission set.

 

[samguitar]

Two -60S + one -60R > three -60S. You would get that second backup option for baseline SAR capability in case two are down for phases or suprises, AND a whole lot more Navy-type tactical and ISR capability that nobody else has.

 

[Flying Low]

Two -60S + one -60R > three -60S. You would get that second backup option for baseline SAR capability in case two are down for phases or suprises, AND a whole lot more Navy-type tactical and ISR capability that nobody else has.

This would be a much larger footprint which is already part of the problem. The Romeo guys could share the majority of parts but not much else. All the extra stuff starts adding up (OIC, pilots, crewman, maintenance personnel, etc)

 

[Gatordev]

This would be a much larger footprint which is already part of the problem. The Romeo guys could share the majority of parts but not much else. All the extra stuff starts adding up (OIC, pilots, crewman, maintenance personnel, etc)

It does kind of point towards the integration of the two platforms though. I'm not talking about in the next 5 years, but long-term, you have to wonder how long it will be before this is seriously looked at. You could follow the HS model and have a bunch of Rs and a few Ssssess. The majority of the HSC missions are a subset of the HSM missions with the big exception of the overland stuff you guys train for.

I don't know that it's a good idea or not, but in the age of cost-reductions, I can see the logic.

 

[lowflier03]

It does kind of point towards the integration of the two platforms though. I'm not talking about in the next 5 years, but long-term, you have to wonder how long it will be before this is seriously looked at. You could follow the HS model and have a bunch of Rs and a few Ssssess. The majority of the HSC missions are a subset of the HSM missions with the big exception of the overland stuff you guys train for.

I don't know that it's a good idea or not, but in the age of cost-reductions, I can see the logic.

I actually wrote up a paper (journal article) on that and decided not to submit it. It actually makes a lot of sense to merge the 2 types of squadrons and operate them like legacy HS. Simplifies manning, MX, etc. I decided the potential hate it would spawn wasn't worth the effort.

 

[robav8r]

It does kind of point towards the integration of the two platforms though. I'm not talking about in the next 5 years, but long-term, you have to wonder how long it will be before this is seriously looked at. You could follow the HS model and have a bunch of Rs and a few Ssssess. The majority of the HSC missions are a subset of the HSM missions with the big exception of the overland stuff you guys train for.

I don't know that it's a good idea or not, but in the age of cost-reductions, I can see the logic.

We put B's and F's together on CG's back in the day. Having the dipper along with the B's RADAR was pretty effective. We had a R from the San Jacinto provide ASW search off the coast of HOA during our LHD deployment when there was an assessed OOA deployer lurking about. ARG's have absolutely zero ASW capability.

 

[Pags]

ARG's have absolutely zero ASW capability.

My Air Boss and I would often discuss how easy it would be for someone who wanted to give their Dear Leader a birthday present to sink an ARG. we figured that our first inkling would either be the LPD disappearing in a flash or a huge shock and geyser of water on own ship.

From an organizational efficiency standpoint it's almost ridiculous how the Navy has been allowed to use 60s as though they're completely different. I get that it comes from 30yrs ago when we flew H-2s, H-3s, and H-46s. But we've all been flying what are essentially the same helo that happen to have different mission systems for 30+ years. You could make a really strong argument for waste and abuse that we have separate RAGs, NATOPS, Wings, etc for reach community. The only reason a 60R guy can't fly a 60S is because we've put administrative rules in place that prevent that so pies are protected. If the budgetary axe ever came down hard I could see the H-60 communities consolidating.

Shit, even beyond the Navy you could start asking why there aren't joint procedures, training, facilities, etc in place for all H-60s.