The actual syllabi have specific objectives, it's the long period spent between upgrades that are the issue.
-
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
The great Helo debate
- Thread starter PhrogLoop
- Start date
I guess what has me scratching my head is what job and shortcomings you're specifically talking about? The 60 has almost 30yrs of success in just about every role that you imagine a utility helicopter performing. And it's amazingly reliable. In over 1300hrs of flying, including some out there T&E stuff, I never had a "real" EP. In 18mo on the boat, I don't think the SAR guys ever had a real EP. I can think of maybe two or three times when the aircraft had actual issues that prevented it from executing its SAR mission. That sort of reliability is amazing. In the ACE, the 60 is far and away the most reliable platform. The Phrog was probably a close second.
What tool would you recommend over the one at hand?
Also, NAVAIR only executes acqusisition programs. OPNAV decides what gets funded. Helicopter T&E is a big part of what NAVAIR does, whether at the appropriate PMAs or at HX-21 and VX-1. None of our test programs ever wanted for money.
Warning, this is probably not realistic in the current fiscal environment, but...
While I can't completely speak to the -60S's simulator, some of them are made by the same company that does the -60R, so it's probably fairly apples to apples. The "new" simulators (Sierra and Romeo) are pretty decent at the tactics/mission side. Sure, they have tons of bugs and idiosyncrasies, but generally, they can be set up to give pilots and crew a complete mission from chocks to chocks and can be networked across multiple sims for both T/M/S.
As a procedural trainer, they're okay, but will have some odd bugs pop up. As a flight simulator, they're pretty terrible. I have a really hard time hovering in them. Rob's post reminds me of one of my first HAC flights back to the boat where we lost our AFCS completely at night. Landing on the ship that night was the same or possibly easier than trying to land on the boat in the sim with a full up set of systems.
So given that flight hours are reduced (compared to my time as a JO and even more so from when Rob was a JO), it would be nice if we could get some of that that money spent on better flight modeling. Then you'd have a decent all-around trainer. Yes, I get it...moving the money from one place to another doesn't solve a budget problem (and helos are pretty damn cheap to run anyway), but it's nice to dream.
While I can't completely speak to the -60S's simulator, some of them are made by the same company that does the -60R, so it's probably fairly apples to apples. The "new" simulators (Sierra and Romeo) are pretty decent at the tactics/mission side. Sure, they have tons of bugs and idiosyncrasies, but generally, they can be set up to give pilots and crew a complete mission from chocks to chocks and can be networked across multiple sims for both T/M/S.
As a procedural trainer, they're okay, but will have some odd bugs pop up. As a flight simulator, they're pretty terrible. I have a really hard time hovering in them. Rob's post reminds me of one of my first HAC flights back to the boat where we lost our AFCS completely at night. Landing on the ship that night was the same or possibly easier than trying to land on the boat in the sim with a full up set of systems.
So given that flight hours are reduced (compared to my time as a JO and even more so from when Rob was a JO), it would be nice if we could get some of that that money spent on better flight modeling. Then you'd have a decent all-around trainer. Yes, I get it...moving the money from one place to another doesn't solve a budget problem (and helos are pretty damn cheap to run anyway), but it's nice to dream.
I'll temper that from my perspective, I've had almost every emergency in the 60 NATOPS at this point, (Minus a dual engine failure, 3 system hyd failure and actual flames in the cabin), including emergencies that aren't supposed to be possible and I know plenty of guys who have had their share as well.
And while it is a robust and reasonably reliable aircraft, we all know the navy could have done much better, even with already existing airframes. And using the phrog as comparison is laughable. That thing would shit engines like it was cool.
Well here's to hoping I have better luck than you have had my friend!
What existing airframes would have been better suited to the myriad of missions that the 60 has to do? Are we talking initial 60B timeframe of early 80s or 60R/S timeframe in the mid to late 90s? To think that there is a perfect airframe is, at best, pie in the sky. Each and every airframe will come with its own limitations that have to be accounted for.
And while USN H-46Ds were trainwrecks, the USMC put a lot of work into their H-46E fleet and solved the engine problem.
Initial production, sure the -60F/B were decent airframes for what the navy needed at the time. But when it was time for new airframes we could have done much better with something else. I understand that we got a good deal on the junk the army didn't want, and thus the S/R are here. But something like the S-92 or the EH-101 would have done more for our capabilities without significant impact on deck footprint. Or if we were really married to the -60 frame, then go the route of Japan with the Mitsubishi 60K. Its got a larger cabin, more fuel, better cockpit and avionics, better engines, better blades, and is plug and play multimission capable.
The really sad part is when you go to the Sikorsky plant and watch them coming off the line. Most airframes now get tricked out with all the new gear and common components, etc. While our get sent over to the Navy side where all the decent gear gets dumped in favor of the retard package we decided to do differently, oh and by the way it costs more, gives us less capability, and costs more to maintain in the long run since it's no longer common with the other services.
The really sad part is when you go to the Sikorsky plant and watch them coming off the line. Most airframes now get tricked out with all the new gear and common components, etc. While our get sent over to the Navy side where all the decent gear gets dumped in favor of the retard package we decided to do differently, oh and by the way it costs more, gives us less capability, and costs more to maintain in the long run since it's no longer common with the other services.
To be fair, that's not the fault of the -60 airframe, just our own acquisition pipeline. I'm not point a finger at the Pags and berts of the world, but the folks higher on the food chain who weren't forward thinking enough on some of the systems that you mention (ADS-B, GPS WAAS nav capability, a useable interface, etc). I don't have any solid evidence to support this, so begin supposition, but... I always got the impression that a lot of the common cockpit came from the HSL side and not the HC side. As a result, there was a lot of "this is what works for us now" thinking rather than looking outside to other services/civilian sector for added capability (like TACAN-only). That was just always the vibe I got when talking to senior people throughout my career as the Romeo (and Sierra) slowly matured, long before it hit the fleet.
The 60R program began in the early 90s. The 60S in the late 90s. The S-92 didn't first fly until 2000. Both the sh-60k and uh-60M were acquired in the mid 2000s. You can't compare a 1998 car to a 2005 car and expect it to be equal. The only airframe that existed at the time was the EH-101, which, in addition to being foreign, is also significantly larger than a 60. A Merlin would not have been able to operate from existing air capable ships. It also would have had zero commonality with other navy 60s foregoing any economy of scale. The Navy Merlin also lacks some capabilities that the 60 has to include a cargo hook and NVD compatability.
I imagine USN went with the LM common cockpit because the 60R started out as an improved lamps mkIII. LM was the contractor for lamps, so I'm sure it was a package deal with the back end. The 60S just piggybacked off of the 60R. Even if the common cockpit started with the 60S, it was still initially 1990s tech.
My understanding (perhaps incorrectly) was that the common cockpit started in the R, but they couldn't get everything to work and it hit it's wickets faster in the S and became available to the fleet first. Ironic since all the initial S wingers went to go fly the B out of Mayport first, then went on to fly the S in San Diego as the cockpit eventually came on line. Eventually Romeo caught up.
At NHA a few years ago the president of Sikorsky said that all we would have to do is check a different box and we would get more powerful engines, better blades, etc. It wouldn't even cost the Navy more. He was dumbfounded why we didn't. He said the Army had a much better relationship in terms of letting Sikorsky know what they wanted and letting them foot the bill for for development. He sighted many of the 160th's projects. My take away was that the Navy's procurement process was the issue. Some guys cited the issue of having different engines and other components for maintenance to work on, but the Army maintains several different airframes within the same maintenance batallion...
The reason the discussion devolved to manning and tactics is because that is still where the fundamental problems lie. To me, one of the biggest reasons the 60S is such an unsatisfactory compromise is because there is a fundamental disconnect between what the community wants to be and what the important people in Naval Aviation actually want. Which is also why the R is going to be fundamentally more successful - the HSM community has been a lot more accepting of what their role really is.
All I will add to that is, while I've stayed in aerospace, there is a reason I didn't take any DOD-related jobs. I've stuck with commercial start ups and haven't missed it a bit.
All I will add to that is, while I've stayed in aerospace, there is a reason I didn't take any DOD-related jobs. I've stuck with commercial start ups and haven't missed it a bit.
I have no clue about the history of the common cockpit. We had a bromeo for a short while at VX-1 (long enough to send it to the boneyard). The cockpit was very similar, but not identical.
The bromeos were always their own critter, so that isn't an accurate barometer. The Sierra was always going to reach the Fleet first because the block ones were trucks and required very limited functionality from the cockpit. The armed helo kits and the first Romeo software were actually very close together in the timeline at the factory.
You know what would make the 60S awesome? 3 radios. Until then, it's a genuine P.O.S.