Navy VS Air Force Helicopter Pilot

[loadtoad]

Another couple factors to consider on 'should' the MH-60S have a probe for HAAR capability.

What organic tanker is there in the Navy that can provide HAAR? None. So who is going to provide us HAAR....

For the 160th they rely primarily on AFSOC MH-130's which are fragged through SOCOM. So that is their dedicated tanker.

The USAF RQS deployment consists of a package with HC-130's, HH-60Gs and PJs. Of note, a "RQS" (Rescue) squadron is either a HH-60G squadron, HC-130 squadron, or PJ squadron (unlike Navy where we HSC, HSM, VFA, is essentially a platform). So again, HH-60Gs have organic dedicated tanking within USAF Combat Rescue.

Marines have their KC-130's for ADGR and for HAAR (if that's what the Osprey nerds call it) to support their expeditionary life style and the rest of the MEU.

That said, if we had a probe to conduct HAAR, it doesn't mean that we would have to have a dedicated tanker, but it sure makes it a lot harder to stay qualified or have on call mission support. Perhaps VR wants to start using those KC-130T's to support HSC if we got a probe! hahaha nope

In the future MCO fight, the question is does the MH-60S need HAAR capability as a mission requirement to support the customer?

 

[red_stang65]

Here are the fuel lines in the MH-60S cabin (Blocks 1 and 2 only). This would allow fuel transfer from the EWSS-mounted tanks, but the Navy wings do not include plumbing.
*Edit: the black fuel line on the port side is near the forward edge of the cabin door. Hard to see in the second pick, but the junction is in the bottom right corner, and leads to the main fuel tanks.

The lack of an organic tanker for the MH-60S is an interesting argument. The MH-53 has the same constraint, yet it is HAAR-capable. Not sure how often they have to plug for currency, or when they actually plan for it, but how much HAAR are they doing during AMCM operations?

HAAR capability for the MH-60S is about way more than just CSAR, too, although that is a major factor in managing the CVW organic CSAR coverage requirement. MCO and “distributed lethality” implies surface ships are spread across a larger water space, with lily pads spread further apart. Factor in how many times ships aren’t where they’re supposed to be/Green Deck when they’re supposed to be, and combine that with the MH-60S fuel constraints, you’re already burning the fuel ladder at both ends for pax/cargo, CASEVAC, SAR, etc missions.

HSC also operates routinely in Joint theaters, covering or assisting USAF/USA in deployments outside of the CVW construct, so access to KC-130/MC-130 is often more a possibility than not. As for future CVW capabilities, maybe the MQ-25 be able to support RW HAAR?

 

[RobLyman]

Here are the fuel lines in the MH-60S cabin (Blocks 1 and 2 only). This would allow fuel transfer from the EWSS-mounted tanks, but the Navy wings do not include plumbing.
*Edit: the black fuel line on the port side is near the forward edge of the cabin door. Hard to see in the second pick, but the junction is in the bottom right corner, and leads to the main fuel tanks.

The lack of an organic tanker for the MH-60S is an interesting argument. The MH-53 has the same constraint, yet it is HAAR-capable. Not sure how often they have to plug for currency, or when they actually plan for it, but how much HAAR are they doing during AMCM operations?

HAAR capability for the MH-60S is about way more than just CSAR, too, although that is a major factor in managing the CVW organic CSAR coverage requirement. MCO and “distributed lethality” implies surface ships are spread across a larger water space, with lily pads spread further apart. Factor in how many times ships aren’t where they’re supposed to be/Green Deck when they’re supposed to be, and combine that with the MH-60S fuel constraints, you’re already burning the fuel ladder at both ends for pax/cargo, CASEVAC, SAR, etc missions.

HSC also operates routinely in Joint theaters, covering or assisting USAF/USA in deployments outside of the CVW construct, so access to KC-130/MC-130 is often more a possibility than not. As for future CVW capabilities, maybe the MQ-25 be able to support RW HAAR?

Blackhawk CEFS Plumbing...tranfer pump on top of main fuel cell.
And wing plumbing..

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Somehow S-3 could receive the fuel from KC-130. Seems Viking thus could be that organic asset for helos

 

[phrogdriver]

Good lord. Is someone talking about bringing back the Hoover? Bringing in another aircraft is an enormous case of “if you give a pig a pancake.” You need parts, training, people, depots, etc. You can’t just pull the Saran Wrap off them and fly them out of the boneyard.

Similar issues exist with installing and using AR on 60s. You don’t get equipment because it’s cool, it has to fill a requirements gap.

The probe comes with significant training and support aircraft requirements. Just keeping squadrons current (and it’s useless otherwise) would require hundreds of tanker sorties a year across the fleet. That’s several aircraft worth, and tankers aren’t cheap—and neither are their personnel, parts, training etc.

All to fill a “nice to have” demand? Not worth it at all.

 

[red_stang65]

Similar issues exist with installing and using AR on 60s. You don’t get equipment because it’s cool, it has to fill a requirements gap.

Go to any helo NARG and listen to the frustrations about how the increased equipment added to the aircraft has significantly decreased the range of the aircraft. I was surprised to hear even the Lockheed folks call out the squadrons for ignoring the original combat radius requirements of the MH-60S.

There are any number of specific mission requirements HAAR meets, and that’s why it’s been a request for at least the past 8 years. I wonder how long the Hawkeye’s probe was discussed before being purchased.

The probe comes with significant training and support aircraft requirements. Just keeping squadrons current (and it’s useless otherwise) would require hundreds of tanker sorties a year across the fleet. That’s several aircraft worth, and tankers aren’t cheap—and neither are their personnel, parts, training etc.

Any HM folks on here that can talk to how often they AR?

Here’s another idea: maybe the CV-22’s mission creep doesn’t go to CSAR, but towards the tanker for E-2/H-60

 

[red_stang65]

@RobLyman
Hadn’t seen the wing plumbing before. Talking with some PMA and NATEC folks, their best guess was the 60S hoses were for the wings, but doesn’t look like that makes sense based on the pressure lines for the CEFS. Any idea what the 60S plumbing is for/connects to?

 

[RobLyman]

@RobLyman
Hadn’t seen the wing plumbing before. Talking with some PMA and NATEC folks, their best guess was the 60S hoses were for the wings, but doesn’t look like that makes sense based on the pressure lines for the CEFS. Any idea what the 60S plumbing is for/connects to?

The SH-60F and HH-60H had low mounted external tanks like the SH-60B. Perhaps that was the intent?

It's pretty weird the way Sikorsky and the military deal with aircraft blueprints. We have a legacy fuel sampling system that is the worst solution possible, but since the Army "owns" the blueprints for the Blackhawk, the Army must pay to change the blue print. Then there is the APU accumulator pump handle location inside the cabin. Really? Yet when making a delivery for a foreign sales Blackhawk to the port, low and behold, it has an APU pump handle access on the outside of the aircraft. It's possible the 60S plumbing is a hold over from the 60F or 60H contract.

 

[thump]

The SH-60F and HH-60H had low mounted external tanks like the SH-60B. Perhaps that was the intent?

It's pretty weird the way Sikorsky and the military deal with aircraft blueprints....

There's a surprising amount of 'vestigial' parts on the various Navy H-60 flavors. Maybe that floor plumbing is for a HIFR port?

As for future CVW capabilities, maybe the MQ-25 be able to support RW HAAR?

Doubt it could fly slow enough. Perhaps we could put a drogue on the Sierra's and probe on Romeo's, outfit a new KH-60S to keep the ASW/SSC birds up . HSC will need a new mission to dream about once born-again VRC gets tactical with their Ospreys and snatches up CSAR/SOF/etc.

 

[phrogdriver]

Go to any helo NARG and listen to the frustrations about how the increased equipment added to the aircraft has significantly decreased the range of the aircraft. I was surprised to hear even the Lockheed folks call out the squadrons for ignoring the original combat radius requirements of the MH-60S.

There are any number of specific mission requirements HAAR meets, and that’s why it’s been a request for at least the past 8 years. I wonder how long the Hawkeye’s probe was discussed before being purchased.



Any HM folks on here that can talk to how often they AR?

Here’s another idea: maybe the CV-22’s mission creep doesn’t go to CSAR, but towards the tanker for E-2/H-60

I’d venture to say HM tanks very seldom. Then again, no one is going to ask them to do a mission that needs it.

CMV-22 (USN) not CV-22 (USAF).

Again, adding a mission to CMV means adding more aircraft, plus the tail for all those aircraft. 60%+ of program costs come in sustainment, not purchase.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

I’d venture to say HM tanks very seldom. Then again, no one is going to ask them to do a mission that needs it.

Seems to be full det trains to do that here
Surely they cannot AR while towing the sled, but if the mines are laid densely it can be wise to AR several times per mission. Since the sea mines are "the poor warrior choice" and thare's no need for special ships to lay them, it may be any seaport's gate where this danger would appear pretty suddenly.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Gents,

Why USN NavAir RW community never sought a possibility to carry AGM-84 missiles? Sister ASMs like British Sea Eagle and French AM-39 found extensive usage on heavy helicopters, the latter missiles were fired from Super Frelons of IAF against Iranian tankers for about 130 times with good results...

 

[Jim123]

I dunno... at first I'd say because the Harpoon is so heavy, although it's not really a lot heavier than the Exocet.

If I remember correctly, we had angle of bank restrictions when carrying a Penguin missile in an H-60. Maneuvering restrictions when carrying slung ordnance are common on all aircraft, but carrying just one Penguin was a real physical burden for the -60, much worse than carrying torpedos. I don't know why the decision was made to carry it so far outboard, far away from the aircraft's center of gravity. Maybe it simply wouldn't fit underneath with the 60 having such short, squat landing gear... I dunno.

I dunno anything about adapting the -53 for a missile, but I'd say in the big picture, that was back when we had 15 carrier battle groups that provided plenty of airplanes to carry Harpoons and other air to surface missiles. There was really no need to figure out how to do it with a helicopter.

 

[Pags]

I dunno... at first I'd say because the Harpoon is so heavy, although it's not really a lot heavier than the Exocet.

If I remember correctly, we had angle of bank restrictions when carrying a Penguin missile in an H-60. Maneuvering restrictions when carrying slung ordnance are common on all aircraft, but carrying just one Penguin was a real physical burden for the -60, much worse than carrying torpedos. I don't know why the decision was made to carry it so far outboard, far away from the aircraft's center of gravity. Maybe it simply wouldn't fit underneath with the 60 having such short, squat landing gear... I dunno.

I dunno anything about adapting the -53 for a missile, but I'd say in the big picture, that was back when we had 15 carrier battle groups that provided plenty of airplanes to carry Harpoons and other air to surface missiles. There was really no need to figure out how to do it with a helicopter.

I also tend to think that there was some sort of doctrinal issues wrt antiship missiles in the USN. Soviets obviously loved ASCMs, the bigger the better! But we never seemed to get onboard with big ship killing missiles. My uneducated guess would be that USN didn't have the same need to kill ships that the Soviets did. Soviets had ASCMs to kill convoys and CVBGs. We had SSNs and ASW to kill Soviet SSGNs and VF+VAW+AEGIS to kill Bears and vampires so VA and VFA could execute strikes. USN RW was never really seen as the primary ship killers, that would've been SSNs and VA. beyond that uneducated guess at 30-40yr old doctrine I don't know what the idea was for SAG vs SAG combat. I'd imagine it would be to avoid it and to sink the Soviet SAG via the CAG.

 

[Jim123]

... guess at 30-40yr old doctrine

You have to suspend reality when the Kirov CCGN runs out of SSMs and attack with your FFG, dodging his shells while going to work with your 76mm. #tactics