Should I stay or should I go? Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love HSC.

[IKE]

Small point of order... HS guys can correct me here, but I believe they had a 4th crewman for ASW. With a more modern SYSCONFIG than the Bravo, I always wondered how much of that was truly workload and how much of it was because of the smaller buoy magazine the Fox had.

I'm not old enough to answer the chicken vs. egg on which came first: 2 crewmen or systems requiring 2 crewmen, but we (HS) needed 2 for SAR, PR, and yes running both the ASO (acoustic) and TSO (tactical) systems. My best guess is 2 crewmen was taken for granted when the 60F was designed, because plane guard.

Similarly, I think 1 crewman was assumed for Romeo development, because that's the way HSL had been already been doing it with the 60B. I've also heard people say the aircrew (including pilots) were never expected to run the whole system alone. The datalink was intended to let the ship help with sensors. Ha!

 

[wink]

It's the Canadian A-12!

On penalties maybe. But the Canuks didn't lose much capability or technology advance. USN, however, lost low observability and other capabilities for decades. It was a disaster both in penalties and sunk costs lost and operations

 

[Pags]

On penalties maybe. But the Canuks didn't lose much capability or technology advance. USN, however, lost low observability and other capabilities for decades. It was a disaster both in penalties and sunk costs lost and operations

I just meant the cost bit.

But otherwise true. The dorito shaped ghost of the A-12 still haunts Naval Aviation in many ways.

 

[hscs]

I'm not old enough to answer the chicken vs. egg on which came first: 2 crewmen or systems requiring 2 crewmen, but we (HS) needed 2 for SAR, PR, and yes running both the ASO (acoustic) and TSO (tactical) systems. My best guess is 2 crewmen was taken for granted when the 60F was designed, because plane guard.

Similarly, I think 1 crewman was assumed for Romeo development, because that's the way HSL had been already been doing it with the 60B. I've also heard people say the aircrew (including pilots) were never expected to run the whole system alone. The datalink was intended to let the ship help with sensors. Ha!

This is correct as far as I remember. The two AWs was for the concurrent SAR requirements.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Well, just contemplating analogues: in VS community AFAIK a single AW of the Viking crew, SENSO, ran everythng: radar, buoy acoustic apparatus, ELINT and MAD, a job the Royal Navy had always thought demands broad horizons and thus is too complex for enlisted people. But USN VS crowd had good ASW objective results, comparable to NFO-dominated VP world. So why then was it impossible to put AW in Prowler at least for ECMO-3 role or Hawkeye for RO job?

 

[Pags]

Well, just contemplating analogues: in VS community AFAIK a single AW of the Viking crew, SENSO, ran everythng: radar, buoy acoustic apparatus, ELINT and MAD, a job the Royal Navy had always thought demands broad horizons and thus is too complex for enlisted people. But USN VS crowd had good ASW objective results, comparable to NFO-dominated VP world. So why then was it impossible to put AW in Prowler at least for ECMO-3 role or Hawkeye for RO job?

There are a lot of different factors that go into this:
-level of technology (S-3 suite was more automated than the P-3)
-culture/prior constructs/the way we've always done it

General US construct is that weapon systems are managed by officers. Sometimes this means one officer interacting with a more advanced system and sometimes this means an officer overseeing a team of technicians running various systems. In the past I believe there were enlisted personnel involved in both VAQ and VAW but as the systems became more advanced and automated the enlisted folks were replaced but the overall responsibility was still run by an officer.

So, under a US construct it's run by officers because it's an officer job. If someone had a wild hair they could certainly have enlisted folks doing some of this stuff but it wouldn't make sense.

 

[wink]

Well, just contemplating analogues: in VS community AFAIK a single AW of the Viking crew, SENSO, ran everything: radar, buoy acoustic apparatus, ELINT and MAD, a job the Royal Navy had always thought demands broad horizons and thus is too complex for enlisted people. But USN VS crowd had good ASW objective results, comparable to NFO-dominated VP world. So why then was it impossible to put AW in Prowler at least for ECMO-3 role or Hawkeye for RO job?

@Pags outlined the general Navy philosophy well. As for VS, in terms of workload, in a Viking most functions could be performed from either SENSO, TACCO, OR COTAC/Copliot seat. There were some compromises. Display for COTAC was too small to perform all of the typical TACCO duties, and although the TACCO could view the audiograms and if knowledgeable enough help out the SENSO, his display was not optimized for the SENSO duties. With that flexibility each crew would determine the division of duties based on the mission and projected workload. It was not the case that the SENSO operated all the sensors. On a serious ASW mission the COTAC might take the radar, the TACCO would set up the ELIT search windows and the COTAC/Copliot ( some crews would be two pilot, most had a NFO in the copilot seat) monitor it. Because we only had one SENSO, doing essentially the same job as 2-3 in a P-3, on ASW missions the SENSO would concentrate solely on the audiograms. He had to be on his game. There wasn't a crusty AW1 looking over his shoulder. The TACCO would set up search patterns and tactics, deploy the buoys, and communicate with the tactical players in surface ships, other VS, HS, or VP (ugh). The TACCO would always deploy and operate the MAD system since it was only used for final localization and attack. The torp was dropped by the TACCO or on a call by the TACCO. This division of duties between crewmembers would vary from this for SSC/surface attack, ELINT missions, mining, etc.

Although the original crew make up worked well, all your eggs were in one basket. If you had a week SENSO you were screwed. There was no real OJT. No senior AW on board to mentor or supervise. You might draw a AWAN fresh out of the RAG or an AWC. In the 90s when it was determined the sub treat was minimal, several squadrons operated with a senior AW in the TACCO seat and a NFO as copilot. The COTAC ran the show from up front with a small display and smaller one handed keyboard.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Thanks a lot for explanations?

In the 90s when it was determined the sub treat was minimal, several squadrons operated with a senior AW in the TACCO seat and a NFO as copilot. The COTAC ran the show from up front with a small display and smaller one handed keyboard.

Essentially a 60B order, right? Yes minus NFO but RW 1310s are quite proficient in some WSO-related jobs, like firing Hellfires I'm sure.

or VP (ugh)

They behaved as elder brothers, isn't it? Bearable?

 

[Pags]

Thanks a lot for explanations?




Essentially a 60B order, right? Yes minus NFO but RW 1310s are quite proficient in some WSO-related jobs, like firing Hellfires I'm sure.



They behaved as elder brothers, isn't it? Bearable?

That's just a helo construct thing. There's been plenty of talk over the years of putting NFOs in helos but it never came to anything. Since there's no NFOs then those duties fall to the pilots.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Since there's no NFOs then those duties fall to the pilots.

Well, Marine Vipers knock the armour out with two pilots and nobody else inside. Interestingly, are they interchangeable within cockpit, just like the same HMLA Super Huey guys?

 

[wink]

They behaved as elder brothers, isn't it? Bearable?

As in elderly with dementia. And no, not bearable .

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

And no, not bearable

(sigh): Ah, "VP are SWOs within NAVAIR"?
While on ASW corvettes, always hated to steam within KPUG (ASW surface action group) with Kashin II as flagship from where the overall ASW co-ordinator ran the show. "I said halt and dip your sonar on the 10-miles range, 30 seconds discretion, report contact, over" - "{Your fucking majesty}, we've got the boat by towed antenna for almost 8 minutes for now, log is on a way to your CIC via HF-type, over" - "I repeat, I said stop and dip your sonar on 10-miles..."

 

[Gatordev]

Essentially a 60B order, right? Yes minus NFO but RW 1310s are quite proficient in some WSO-related jobs, like firing Hellfires I'm sure.

Not really. The co-pilot couldn't operate the accoustics or the MAD and there was only one SENSO in the back. And as Pags was saying, weapons release was only from the front (except for crew-served weapons, of course). Additionally, the SENSO had training on how to read and operate the accoustics. The co-pilot just got OJT by going up the SENSO's screen and learning what stuff looked like, which honestly, wasn't all that helpful for the passive stuff.

 

[Pags]

Well, Marine Vipers knock the armour out with two pilots and nobody else inside. Interestingly, are they interchangeable within cockpit, just like the same HMLA Super Huey guys?

It's usually a junior/senior thing within Snakes. I believe the standard is that the 2P is up front in the gunners seat and the HAC is in the back.

Everyone ways makes a thing about Helo HACs sitting right seat but that wasn't a thing I experienced. A lot of it was dictated by hotseats, as the HAC you took the seat the 2P vacated unless there was a mission requirement for a certain seat. For instance, if you were taking a bunch of folks to the boat for DLQs then the HAC sat right seat to maximize the terror for the HAC and training for the 2P. This was less of a thing on ships with straight in approaches but important for ships with diagonal approaches like LHDs and early DDGs.

 

[Pags]

It's usually a junior/senior thing within Snakes. I believe the standard is that the 2P is up front in the gunners seat and the HAC is in the back.

Everyone ways makes a thing about Helo HACs sitting right seat but that wasn't a thing I experienced. A lot of it was dictated by hotseats, as the HAC you took the seat the 2P vacated unless there was a mission requirement for a certain seat. For instance, if you were taking a bunch of folks to the boat for DLQs then the HAC sat right seat to maximize the terror for the HAC and training for the 2P. This was less of a thing on ships with straight in approaches but important for ships with diagonal approaches like LHDs and early DDGs.

Sorry, HAC sat LEFT to maximize terror.