Heh, the “one person who’s done a manual move” was an oblique reference to my COMFORT deployment where there really was only one person on the det who had done a manual move before when the mantis died during a downpour.
-
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
"We keep you alive to serve this helicopter. So pull well, and live."
Your entire premise is incorrect and misleading to those unfamiliar with it: Sierras traversing on a small boy is a non-issue. The MK-II Douglas Aircraft Handler traverses the Sierra just fine -- I know because we did it for six months. MANTIS SHH/ELP have their own issues which have nothing to do with the Handler. The MK-II is a very simple and robust piece of support equipment that simply needs continued support from FRC, presuming there is a demand for Sierras on small boys.
We’re more on the same page than you might be thinking @RedFive. It can be done (and has been done), there are several options for movement (each has their own issues and limitations), but there’s a bigger cost to doing it:
There historically isn't, though having done an independent deployment as an OPS, I see a lot of value in having a mixed Det of 1x Romeo and 1x Sierra. The Romeo is invaluable to our primary mission as CRUDES, but it doesn't do LOG well at all. Plus, if I were doing a SoH/BAM transit without TACAIR, I'd probably prefer a Sierra up there as top cover.
I'm guessing the mixed Det concept isn't feasible for a host of maintenance and aircrew reasons; but on a SAG deployment it would make a lot of sense to throw a Sierra Det on one of the ships.
Which is silly given the SUPER-Hawk NATOPS that never really got truly implemented in the way I imagine it was supposed to be and given that I would have to imagine that 85% of the birds are common in maintenance. I just think the Navy hasn't put in effort and/or the money to make it happen, likely because there wasn't a serious demand signal.
I haven't tried it the other way so I don't know what unique stuff the S brings to that, but I'm struggling to imagine why you wouldn't want the R's radar/Hawklink up there.
I do recall all the conversations much earlier this decade with 60S guys about the gun, MTS, and Hellfire didn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy about it.
Not going to get into specifics but on most high profile chokepoint transits these days you have other assets pumping info to you. The Sierra, laden with small-ship killing weapons, can pack a lot more punch than a Romeo. It's a trade-off for sure, and I'd say the more contentious the situation, the more I'd want a Sierra overhead; the less-so, the more I'd prefer a Romeo.
Interesting to hear the SWO perspective, because from my experience (8x Hormuz; 2x BAM), the Romeo was the primary provider of the surface picture. I know there are other sources, but our info was real-time; the P-3s, especially non-U.S. weren't very useful.
Now, I'd much rather fly a Sierra for LSF, especially if it's wingless, but I know everyone thinks we need those weapons for the transit.
It could be done, someone would just need to go against the communities. The test squadrons do this to a varying extent. When I was at VX-1 we implemented a cross training program that would have allowed folks to become HACs for either an R or an S. Two folks did it and I was trying to do it before real work got in the way. But the HSM guys didn't really like the idea because the HSC guys were going to "mess up the dome." Never mind that half of our HSC guys had grown up in 60Fs and had FAR more some time than any of the 60R guys, most of whom had been 60B guys before coming to VX-1 and had only done whatever dip training the HSM FRS obligated for CAT-Others. That and the real point was to allow guys to have options for aircraft in case, for instance, all the 60Ss were in unique test configurations or down. And then the HSM community got involved and really tried to turn it off because they didn't want a bunch of HSC guys ruining their community (like @IKE).
On the maintenance side they're the same aircraft. VX-1 has Sailor maintenance and the Sailors worked on all flavors of 60s to include the 60F we had for a bit and the weird 60Bromeo we couldn't get rid of fast enough.
It would take a few briefs, some pen strokes, and some ATOs to make a composite Det. The major downside would be increased risk of being down the aircraft your boss needs you to fly. Because helo math says having 1 helicopter means you really have 0 helicopters.
Last edited:
@Pags, your description matches what I saw on my JO tour. My CO was a believer in the Super-Hawk NATOPS qual and allowed a few R guys to be 2Ps on a couple of our flights, however, we were vociferously rebuffed by the HSM front office when we tried to get some of our HACs to fly as 2Ps with them. That ended the exchange rather rapidly as you might expect.
I think the biggest limitation that would need to be overcome for a mixed det of 2 is dealing with expectations. Yes, administratively you can have the same aircrews fly both aircraft (see my repeated posts on going back to a HS concept). But the Mx on a small boy is unique, ESPECIALLY if you're doing SAG/independent ops. While you have two aircraft, it's really 2 to make 1. I forget what the PAA is, but I don't think it's much more than 1.1-ish.
You typically don't want to fly both birds evenly in order to keep the phases spread apart (an even bigger issue for a D-phase) as well as managing FLM (or whatever it's called now). So there's some balancing that occurs between Mx and Ops. Invariably there are parts issues, which causes one bird to be hard down for the duration of that steaming period (but maybe not always the same bird, day to day, if you can CANN a part).
There's also the issue of managing expectations with the ship's CO (and OpsO). I've done 2-plane dets where both aircraft were evenly matched (2 FLIRS, although cabin configuration would be different so we had one ASW bird) and that's easier, but I've also done deployments where one aircraft was more equipped than the other (relatively speaking), so the ship would always want to fly the more capable aircraft, which wasn't realistic. Obviously it would depend on the mission and CO's mindset to determine which aircraft (S or R) would be more valuable, but that CO would need to understand you can't use just one exclusively.
It's all doable, no doubt. Given the relative amount of shooting that's been done historically, and the limited amount of LOG that's actually done during independent ops, personally it doesn't make much sense to me to give up the radar (and possibly ESM or ALFS, depending on the mission) for what basically boils down to a little more room in the back, but with less fuel. But I can understand the argument.
You typically don't want to fly both birds evenly in order to keep the phases spread apart (an even bigger issue for a D-phase) as well as managing FLM (or whatever it's called now). So there's some balancing that occurs between Mx and Ops. Invariably there are parts issues, which causes one bird to be hard down for the duration of that steaming period (but maybe not always the same bird, day to day, if you can CANN a part).
There's also the issue of managing expectations with the ship's CO (and OpsO). I've done 2-plane dets where both aircraft were evenly matched (2 FLIRS, although cabin configuration would be different so we had one ASW bird) and that's easier, but I've also done deployments where one aircraft was more equipped than the other (relatively speaking), so the ship would always want to fly the more capable aircraft, which wasn't realistic. Obviously it would depend on the mission and CO's mindset to determine which aircraft (S or R) would be more valuable, but that CO would need to understand you can't use just one exclusively.
It's all doable, no doubt. Given the relative amount of shooting that's been done historically, and the limited amount of LOG that's actually done during independent ops, personally it doesn't make much sense to me to give up the radar (and possibly ESM or ALFS, depending on the mission) for what basically boils down to a little more room in the back, but with less fuel. But I can understand the argument.
This.
I can't imagine that there's enough of a LOG need to give up the capabilities you'd get with 2X60R for a DDG unless there's some sort of really niche need for that specific deployment such as doing MIO/VBSS/whatever we call taking over other people's ship ops. But if that's the case a good argument could be made to make changes to standing community rules to get the job done.
However, the idea of a composite det with a radar bird and 60S is essentially what HSC is doing with MQ-8 and MH-60S on LCS. You have an MQ-8 for your persistent SSC missions and "up high" type work and then you have a manned 60S for areas where more dynamic maneuvering is useful or LOG.
Kind of what I was hinting at, these days you usually have a US MPRA for a big transit, not always but usually. That kind of reduces the advantage of the Romeo for those transits given the Sierra's superior SUW punch.
Agree that non-US MPRA tend to be useless, just about anywhere in the world.
Ah gotcha. I get where you're coming from now.
I still feel like I'd prefer to just get "proper" land based support for strategic chokepoints like the BAM or SOH though as a general rule...just because the transit is a snapshot in the deployed timeframe of a ship. You don't want to come out the other end and regret not having multipurpose capability when you get through and find you really need it when you're on station to operate for months. Ideally. Obviously can't always get what you want.
And if there's an amphib anywhere in the mix, throw up AH-1Zs if you really need small craft killing firepower.