Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[Gatordev]

That sounds exhausting - hmmm in my day I just called my detailer 2-3 months out to end of tour and said "Hey I want to go to the HT's - what do you think" and I had orders the next day to HT-18.

It's the same basic process, it's just that you submit what you want and you get ranked and "selected" (for lack of a better word). If you think you weren't vetted when you were a JO, you're fooling yourself. It just wasn't as formal a process.

I was a squarely middle of the pack player in my first squadron. I shunned ground jobs that took real effort, or simply found more willing peers who would do the work. I flew flew flew and stayed in top 5 for flight time - and that was the sole basis of my selection to go to HT's. Ahhh this high stakes political competitiveness that you guys describe - begging for the praise and annointment of your skipper and XO seems less fun.

You keep saying this about your JO tour and I'm baffled that JOPA let it continue. If guys didn't pull their weight in whatever ground job at my first squadron, it was noticed by "senior" JOPA. Typically the "top 5" fliers were also the guys that had the notable ground jobs, be it in Ops or Mx, because we had all the quals AND we would get the ground job done (of note, the same occurred during my DH tour). Obviously the Ops guys would have a little more flight time because they could only eat their boogers upstairs in Ops for so long before putting themselves on the flight schedule.

I wonder if some of the difference wasn't because we didn't have dedicated DET MOs.

 

[DanMa1156]

I was a squarely middle of the pack player in my first squadron. I shunned ground jobs that took real effort, or simply found more willing peers who would do the work. I flew flew flew and stayed in top 5 for flight time - and that was the sole basis of my selection to go to HT's. Ahhh this high stakes political competitiveness that you guys describe - begging for the praise and annointment of your skipper and XO seems less fun.

I mean, it's Skipper dependent, but in general, the rule that I got taught in the FRS applied pretty well: "If you excel at 2 out of the following three and are good at the third, you'll get taken care of: - be a good pilot, a good officer, and a good dude." In general, our high time fliers were also the guys with the most quals and the hardest ground jobs. Times are different. Skipper and OPS-O generally did a good job of spreading the love on deployment too.

 

[Pags]

Are they upgradable to the current standard?

No idea. I'd bet it's technically feasible but not fiscally achievable.

 

[DanMa1156]

No idea. I'd bet it's technically feasible but not fiscally achievable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how they've gotten some squadrons armed helos? I know it's a long (and presumably expensive) process, but isn't it just effectively adding the data bus and the wiring to handle the weapons? I'm very much under the impression that the last S rolled off the line in 2015-2016 timeframe, but squadrons were getting upgraded to all have at least some armed helos (i.e. block IIIB).

 

[Gatordev]

No idea. I'd bet it's technically feasible but not fiscally achievable.

I'm not very savvy on the HSC SLEP schedule, but I wouldn't be surprised if the community didn't build that into their SLEP planning. I think the -60S SLEP study (I forget the correct name) was already funded recently and the actual SLEP is on track. The HSM SLEP side is just starting since the airframes are a bit newer.

 

[Pags]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how they've gotten some squadrons armed helos? I know it's a long (and presumably expensive) process, but isn't it just effectively adding the data bus and the wiring to handle the weapons? I'm very much under the impression that the last S rolled off the line in 2015-2016 timeframe, but squadrons were getting upgraded to all have at least some armed helos (i.e. block IIIB).

I haven't been up on 60/299 plans in four years so no idea as to the technical details and whether it's been done before. Last time I was paying attention to HSC I thought the plan was to maximize BlkIIIs on the seawall because the Is and IIs weren't useful deployed and they were getting harder to maintain. At the time there was no need/plan to update the Is and IIs that I knew of. But I was never in 299 so I can't speak accurately to any details.

 

[Pags]

I'm not very savvy on the HSC SLEP schedule, but I wouldn't be surprised if the community didn't build that into their SLEP planning. I think the -60S SLEP study (I forget the correct name) was already funded recently and the actual SLEP is on track. The HSM SLEP side is just starting since the airframes are a bit newer.

Like I said to @DanMa1156, I'm not savvy on current plans. My post was just a guess based get eral knowledge of how hard it is to keep a fleet in a minimal number of configs.

 

[ChuckMK23]

This is interesting! Do Block 1’s no longer deploy - or a better question to commanders not want Block 1’s on deployment ?

I had to lookup what the Blocks meant:

Block 1 – Vertical replenishment, internal cargo and personnel
transport, medical evacuation, Search and Rescue, and Aircraft
Carrier Plane Guard
• Block 2 – Detection, classification, and/or neutralization of sea
mines depending on which AMCM systems are employed on
the aircraft
• Block 3 – CSAR, SUW, Aircraft Carrier Plane Guard,
Maritime Interdiction Operations, and Special Warfare Support

 

[Pags]

This is interesting! Do Block 1’s no longer deploy - or a better question to commanders not want Block 1’s on deployment ?

I had to lookup what the Blocks meant:

Block 1 – Vertical replenishment, internal cargo and personnel
transport, medical evacuation, Search and Rescue, and Aircraft
Carrier Plane Guard
• Block 2 – Detection, classification, and/or neutralization of sea
mines depending on which AMCM systems are employed on
the aircraft
• Block 3 – CSAR, SUW, Aircraft Carrier Plane Guard,
Maritime Interdiction Operations, and Special Warfare Support

In simpler terms:
1: vanilla 60S. It has doors. That open.
2: had provisions for the AMCM equipment.
3: survivability equipment, weapons, FLIR, link16.

 

[lowflier03]

Are they upgradable to the current standard?

Depends on what you consider "upgradeable." At one point the plan was to upgrade every 60S to Block 3B. Then NAVAIR realized how expensive and involved it would be and the ROI was not worth it. Now there are a bunch of early block aircraft sitting in preservation with low-ish flight time. The early block aircraft (1 and 2) essentially had no mission computer and no plumbing for aux fuel tanks. This means any upgrade involves a complete rewire, addition of internal and external hardware, (think survivability gear like fish eyes and flare dispensers), and changes to the fuel system. They would also need major airframe mods to mount MTS and the EWS system for Rockets/Hellfire/AMCM.

There are also some 60S "frankenbirds" that do not conform to traditional blocks. The birds from the 2515th NAAD were early block aircraft with a hybrid self defense capability added that is unique to them. And not all of the Block 3 birds were upgraded to 3B, and even then not all of the 3B birds have the same features. So there is a mishmash of around 5 versions of 60S aircraft with differing levels of usefulness.

The current utilization rate of 60S has put all the Block 3s well over the flight hours expected for this stage in their lifespan. SLEP/SLAP have been discussed, but last I heard the HSC community leadership was trying to force a mid-life upgrade that would send aircraft back to the factory to extend the flight hour limit while also giving us a reason to throw in a mission computer replacement. (Pretty sure the funding for this has been consistently denied.) Oh and now station SAR is arguing that they need newer Block 3 aircraft because they need MTS/FLIR.

Several other proposals have been floated with varying levels of interest. You could upgrade all the old birds to 3B, you could pull early block aircraft from preservation and sent them to Station SAR, you could build a hybrid by putting "dumb" weapon systems on a Block 1/2. (UGR and M-197 have a seperate weapon control system that is not tied to the mission computer in a Block 3, but still require EWS). EGMS would solve some of this as it allows you to mount .50 cal, miniguns, and rockets directly to the Strut mounts, without the need to mod the airframe to accept EWS, but it doesn't give you MTS or LINK. Heck, you could pull early block aircraft out of preservation and give every squadron 2 or 3 bare bones airframes to just cover SAR/LOG/ULT work and save hours on the Block 3 birds.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Can Block I's do night over water personnel recovery/hoist - is there some sort of coupled doppler radar ? (or some other technology to hover in place over water in zero visibility)

 

[lowflier03]

Can Block I's do night over water personnel recovery/hoist - is there some sort of coupled doppler radar ? (or some other technology to hover in place over water in zero visibility)

None of the 60S have normal radar, but they all have RADALT and basic coupler functionality. Doppler hover was a SH-60B/F function. The 60R/S have EGI's (use GPS and INS to maintain hover). So basically every Navy H-60 regardless of series/block can do basic overwater SAR day or night.

 

[Uncle Fester]

None of the 60S have normal radar, but they all have RADALT and basic coupler functionality. Doppler hover was a SH-60B/F function. The 60R/S have EGI's (use GPS and INS to maintain hover). So basically every Navy H-60 regardless of series/block can do basic overwater SAR day or night.

Maybe a dumb question, but how much exotic gear do you need for Station SAR? My experience with it is limited to being stashed with P’cola SAR waiting for A-Pool, back in the H-3 days. But my impression was that they do basic “lost kayaker” SAR stuff and station log runs; the Coasties and ANG handle the sexier stuff.

 

[lowflier03]

Maybe a dumb question, but how much exotic gear do you need for Station SAR? My experience with it is limited to being stashed with P’cola SAR waiting for A-Pool, back in the H-3 days. But my impression was that they do basic “lost kayaker” SAR stuff and station log runs; the Coasties and ANG handle the sexier stuff.

Not a dumb question, but it has a complicated answer. Some of the Station SAR units have had...difficulty...passing certain evaluations. One of the excuses given was that they would be much more effective with MTS (since per the SAR TACAID, FLIR is a search tool).

Having done a good deal searching with both FLIR and plain eyeball/NVGs I would argue that FLIR only provides a small benefit in very limited situations. Unfortunately there are no extra Block 3B airframes, and just adding FLIR to early block airframes involves a complete rewire to install mission computers and assorted hardware, plus an airframe rework to add the mount. But if you need a convenient excuse, always blame it on the hardware.

 

[Gatordev]

The current utilization rate of 60S has put all the Block 3s well over the flight hours expected for this stage in their lifespan. SLEP/SLAP have been discussed, but last I heard the HSC community leadership was trying to force a mid-life upgrade that would send aircraft back to the factory to extend the flight hour limit while also giving us a reason to throw in a mission computer replacement. (Pretty sure the funding for this has been consistently denied.)

When I mentioned "SLEP," this is what I was referring to, but I guess using the wrong term. My knowledge is 2-3 NARGs old, but I thought the HSC community had put more funding toward this. It came up since at the time, SLEP/SLAP evaluation (I know I'm mixing up the terms) was quickly reaching top 3 for the HSM NARG at the time.