Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Thanks. But is the length of a fuel hose of D704 buddy store quite enough for helo?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Navy VS Air Force Helicopter Pilot
- Thread starter Reg-A-Muffin0716
- Start date
Thanks. But is the length of a fuel hose of D704 buddy store quite enough for helo?
Who cares? None of the a/c you mentioned exist and even if they did I doubt they could get slow enough to safely refuel a helo.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Have you as a RW 1310 ever wanted air refueling capability on Navy 60'? Is it desirable for HS's way of life?
If the Navy actually cared about overland CSAR or SOF they probably would have included this on the MH-60S. However, at the time of purchase, when it was being conceived as a replacement for the H-46 it wasn't a thought as far as I am aware. As a result, the MH-60S is routinely limited by fuel for complex tactical overland missions. Even overwater, it's about a lillypad plan with the CRUDES if necessary.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Thanks a lot. Since Navy had experimented with initially unrefuelable platforms such as C-2/E-2 and the latter eventually became refuelable, it is strange enough that there wasn't such test beds for 60'. On the other hand, Navy's MH-53Es minehunters are refuelable...
Too young to have been around, but what I have heard and from what I can infer based on the HSC community is that the MH-60S was very much bought in a haste to replace the need for a SAR and VERTREP platform. The Block 1 MH-60S's really are CH-60Ss (in fact, I think they were originally called that) - there's not really much about them that's multi mission or tactical at all save for a few defensive things built into the aircraft.
Although why bother duplicating the ASW capability if you’re adding HSM to the CVW anyway.
I’m mainly saying that the S model is the biggest waste of money for an operational helicopter the military has purchased base on mission capability and actual cost.
The story I’ve always heard is the MH-60S has the plumbing for aerial refueling as it’s based on the Army H-60 platform. The Navy decided they didn’t need it so they didn’t connect it/mount the probe.
True. I've seen it on a block 1 in depot. Also plumbed for drop tanks on the batwings.
160th MH-60s may be plumbed for the probe, but none of the stock UH/EH/HH-60s are. 60Ms are all plumbed for up to four external and one internal aux tank. WHY would someone want to sit in the seat that long? Configured like this, it holds 760 gallons; way more than my bladder can stand. And that is without the second set of externals (400 gal) or the internal aux (193 gal). Four hours back from Gulfport, MS yesterday was all my butt can handle these days.
LOL...searching for a good stock photo of the external tanks lead me to this article. Yours truly at the controls.
I'd always heard that the 60S had the plumbing for an AR probe but I've never seen it. I'm not sure about the plumbing for the batwings, I've seen the EWS covers off plenty taking CSTRS on and off and don't recall a fuel line (I could be wrong). Skid Row at VX-1 used to have an old 60S roadmap poster up on the wall from way back when the project was started that showed the planned capabilities for the blocks. It had a Block 3C that included AR, a HUD, and some other stuff that i don't recall (moving map?). Obviously something that didn't come fully to fruition (yet?).
I think having AR on a USN 60 would be a bit of a self licking ice cream cone. There's no organic USN AR platform you could use and the only platform you could refuel from would be a C-130 and if you have a KC or MC around then you probably also have other better CSAR assets around. So, would it be a cool toy that the community would want? Sure, no one says no to cool toys. But it would just end up being another under resourced mission set for HSC JOs to gripe about.
I cant speak accurately to why the MH-53Es were bought with AR. The easy answer is that the CH-53E had it so keeping it on was the cheaper option. I don't know whether long range VOD was a driver of the AR requirement or something that was a marketing point because the help already came with an AR probe. Even if it was a requirement you'd still run in to the same problem of not having a lot of C-130s around to AR off of.
USN CMV-22s will come with an AR probe.
From what I remember, the "plumbing" for the batwings that I saw was just a connector under the floor. It didn't even go up the cabin walls, just a very short + connector in the floor. It's been a while, I just distinctly remember the guy working on it pointing out that it was plumbed for any of the potential army configurations.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Surely so. Thanks, I missed out the fact (now I consider this as a fact) that no organic CVW tanker could refuel the helicopter no matter how fast the latter is.
The main job of HMs is minesweeping, and this task usually linked to a certain place where the sea mines are laid. Knowing the place the Navy can allocate the needed KC/MC-130 assets during the planning stage of operations. Oh BTW can HMs' dets be deployed on a carriers or LHA/D is their normal home? Or the embarkation is not normal way of deployment for them and USAF Galaxy fleet plays the main cast in this?