@insanebikerboy good gouge, thanks for sharing. Too bad the knowledge doesn’t flow back.
-
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
Should I stay or should I go? Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love HSC.
- Thread starter Wareal
- Start date
Taking anything more than ONE pax is really challenging for a romeo squadron.
I just don't understand how you design and build a seating system that requires you to eliminate one of the seats if you use another seat. How does that even happen?
"We have 5 seats, but we can only use 4 seats. Unless we use that 5th seat, in which case we can only use 4 seats." Just get rid of the damn 5th seat!
We had an exchange USAF HH-60G Captain or Major at the West Coast Weapons school during my JO tour. He was really great to learn from WRT CSAR. I'd hope this exchange is continuing.
Couple of random thoughts-
1) we are talking about PR/CSAR as in 1990s era requirements. We may lose a ship that leaves half of the crew in life rafts. Not something a pair of 60s can fix. Does PR become an LCS racing forward after locating survivors via MQ8?
2) We did fight our way across the Pacific with DDs in PG. We can have surface ships cover SAR if other missions are needed for the helos. We seem stuck in a paradigm that PG shall be a helo.
3) There are options to keep the capability- that is why we had HCS-4/5 back in the day as true reserve squadrons. It can be done again.
4) Unless we spend a lot more money on the CMV22s, they will not be able to support the mission creep.
5) Intra CSG transfer can be optimized. I can’t count the times I brought some one to the CVN because they didn’t do their dental check up before they left home port. Also, ship COs are notorious for demanding extra log runs to get their parts faster (and then they are late setting flight quarters). Their plan while good for the ship doesn’t make logical sense for everyone else and would make an outsider from Amazon or Fedex think we are idiots.
1) we are talking about PR/CSAR as in 1990s era requirements. We may lose a ship that leaves half of the crew in life rafts. Not something a pair of 60s can fix. Does PR become an LCS racing forward after locating survivors via MQ8?
2) We did fight our way across the Pacific with DDs in PG. We can have surface ships cover SAR if other missions are needed for the helos. We seem stuck in a paradigm that PG shall be a helo.
3) There are options to keep the capability- that is why we had HCS-4/5 back in the day as true reserve squadrons. It can be done again.
4) Unless we spend a lot more money on the CMV22s, they will not be able to support the mission creep.
5) Intra CSG transfer can be optimized. I can’t count the times I brought some one to the CVN because they didn’t do their dental check up before they left home port. Also, ship COs are notorious for demanding extra log runs to get their parts faster (and then they are late setting flight quarters). Their plan while good for the ship doesn’t make logical sense for everyone else and would make an outsider from Amazon or Fedex think we are idiots.
Correct for a 2nd tour pilot not screened for O-4 and DH. If it's a pilot that already has paper, different story. I think there is change in the air which is a good.
Lessons learned make it back to NAWDC, and maritime lessons make it to the USAF...
It does...
It is...
All excellent points. My biggest concern with the HCS-4/5 model is that for whatever reason in the past big Navy did not deploy them post Vietnam when they were needed. If my memory is correct it wasn't until Desert Storm that they were used in a CSAR capacity but could have been used during Grenada, Libya, and maybe Syria? So if active HSC shoves off the CSAR mission and HSC-85 covers down for the Navy, they need to be supported correctly (IRF style with airlift assigned, timelines, funding, etc).
That's a matter of misguided policy. I presume you'll agree that people shouldn't be airlifted between platforms during deployment for "dental readiness" unless there's a dental emergency.
The amount of bandwidth leadership expends on dental readiness vs the time a lack of dental readiness actually impacts the mission should be the subject of a CNA study to expose the extraordinary misprioritization of resources expended on this issue.
I’m glad to hear the times have changed. I knew two dudes that did an exchange with the 66 RQS and when they came back to the Navy, no one gave them the time of day. It’s also heartening to hear those positions may not be the career killer they once were
Brett, I agree completely. And yet these kind of things as well as cybersecurity awareness training compliance numbers seem to be more important than actual war-fighting capabilities lately. Checks in the boxes. "Red alert, update your NFAAS NOW!!!"
No joke, there have been "you won't fly until it's updated" emails that I've seen. And it's not the problem from the squadron level. It's the NEED for reporting about insane minutiae coming from levels it doesn't need to. The Flight surgeon needs to care about your dental. Your commodore doesn't. The CNO doesn't. Your admin O needs to care about your page 2 and NFAAS etc. Maybe the CO does. The commodore does not. The CNO does not. Everything I'm saying is not necessarily correct in regards to current instructions, just common sense,
Last edited:
This is the same service that requires every mobilizing reservist to take THREE damn physicals before boots on ground. Yes, three. I know there were early-GWOT issues with folks showing up with pacemakers and stuff, but let's price out the cost of doing all this pain train for every mobilizing SELRES instead of trusting that someone with a current PHA is, you know, deployable.
Point is that Big Navy seems content in many areas to throw ridiculous bucks at what are arguably medical corner cases that probably don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Sure, there are conditions which should be disqualifying, but still.
Is there an official process for this now? There was no NAWDC debrief or post-exchange interview after my time w the Air Force was done. Not saying I could’ve revamped Navy CSAR with all the knowledge I gained, but I highly doubt anything i learned ever trickled over to the Fallon brain trust.
If the Navy really valued these types of assignments and any real lessons learned, these would be career-enhancing assignments - not what’s given out after the instructor nomination board as a consolation prize to everybody that’s left needing shore duty orders.
Now that HSC is downsizing, I'll bet money those positions don't do much to help a guy make DH or command. A lot of guys are going to get screwed in this.
Given that HSC is downsizing, smaller ponds for talent and stovepiped career tracks generally aren’t great for managing human capital. Can the Navy combine HSC and HSM squadrons - or at least allow pilots to go more freely back and forth between them?
There aren’t SWCC officers (except Warrants) because it’s better to make the pond bigger (pun intended) for talent, and have SEAL officers command SWCC units rather than maintain two niche officer tracks.
It's too bad that Naval Aviation doesn't have a way to use "greybeards" like this. USAF calls em "line dogs" and the CV-22 pilot I work with was bemoaning the fact that because he didn't make command he may have to go back and be a random O5 who flies a bunch and makes sure the JOs are keeping the popcorn machine full.