Where do carriers get helos to cover CQ and other at sea periods sans Air Wing

[Gatordev]

I think specializing does help w/ maintaining proficiency and ability w/in a limited scope, but I don't think that's an official policy. In some cases, Reserve squadrons don't have the newest gear, so they can't do all the missions that the REGNAV squadrons can (LAMPS has this issue). In other cases, you have much more experienced guys who can focus on specific mission areas and do them very well, so why have them waste the limited time of reservists to be jack of all trades (reserve aggressor squadrons, for example).

As Uncle Fester said, squadrons like -4/84 are their own weird animal and because they've been both specialized as well as busy, they're not even exclusively reserve anymore. I'm not sure if -85 will take the same shape when they get back up to speed.

 

[Pags]

For the East Coast guys, are they getting the HSC bubbas to cover the U/W SAR dets because they're right there in Nawfolk anyway? Seems like, if you're not doing airwing-centric training, it'd make more sense to grab some dudes that are literally right down the street from the Boats, than have guys haul up from Jax/Mayport. But we all know 'sense' got nothing to do with it.

There's one east coast HSC squadron that ponied up to do all the east coast CQ/TCQ dets. In the past the HS squadrons did it because the HS squadrons were the carrier helo squadrons. HC went out whenever the Gators needed SAR and the HS bubbas went out whenever the CVs needed SAR. But, since the HS squadrons are in the process of transitioning to the new hotness, the east coast ended up with one less HS squadron so there wasn't enough HS squadrons to cover the deployment cycles AND cover the CQs. At the same time, my old squadron had found itself in a bit of a pickle. We had extra pilots to cover the beast that was our forward deployed det but our hours and PAA hadn't been increased to cover the increased number of pilots. So we ended up volunteering to cover all future CQ dets provided they plussed up our a/c and hours to cover it with the benefit of being able to easily give guys boat exposure.

In addition to HS-75, the Navy also had HC-16 to det out on the AVT. But that went away with the Lex.

 

[MasterBates]

HSL squadrons also do RAG/TRACOM CQ Dets.

I've done 2. One was a composite det from 42 and 46 and 40 (B Rag) using the 40 XO as the OIC IIRC.

Other was just a 4 plane "SupaDet" manned up solely buy 42.

 

[Bevo16]

We used to send out our CQ dets with senior JO's as the OIC. It was pretty f'ing cool to take 4 aircraft to the carrier and leave the entire front office and all hinges on the beach.

There were probably less shenanigans when it was just us JO's, because nobody wanted to screw up a good deal. Everyone really stepped up their game.

 

[insanebikerboy]

There's one east coast HSC squadron that ponied up to do all the east coast CQ/TCQ dets. In the past the HS squadrons did it because the HS squadrons were the carrier helo squadrons.

It's not entirely HSC only, HS does cover a few every now and then.

 

[Pags]

It's not entirely HSC only, HS does cover a few every now and then.

The plan as I understood it was for my old squadron to do most, if not all, of them. That's why we got more a/c and hours.

When we were working up to the CQ dets, we'd split them with other squadrons. For the first couple we split them with HS squadrons to learn how to work on a CV. Despite the D being identical, flying from a CV is very different from flying from an LHD.

 

[insanebikerboy]

The plan as I understood it was for my old squadron to do most, if not all, of them. That's why we got more a/c and hours.

When we were working up to the CQ dets, we'd split them with other squadrons. For the first couple we split them with HS squadrons to learn how to work on a CV. Despite the D being identical, flying from a CV is very different from flying from an LHD.

It very well may be that HSC is getting them all now. We covered a few earlier this year but getting into workups stopped that for us.

 

[Pags]

We used to send out our CQ dets with senior JO's as the OIC. It was pretty f'ing cool to take 4 aircraft to the carrier and leave the entire front office and all hinges on the beach.

There were probably less shenanigans when it was just us JO's, because nobody wanted to screw up a good deal. Everyone really stepped up their game.

That's a very good deal. I want to say we were initially required to bring an O-5 with us. I think that may have softened to a couple of O-4s lately.

 

[JIMC5499]

We flew 3 Sea Kings from Jax to NAS Willow Grove to ride the Forrestal out of Philly for her sea trials in 85. HS-75 was no where to be seen. Once the Forrestal was at Mayport we had a det go everywhere she went. We even recalled the duty section and flew one helo over to her in Mayport because of a storm threat that might have sent her out. What was funny is they let us land on her at the pier, but we had to be craned off to return to Jax.

 

[highside7r]

I could never understand why we (Jax HS) would have to send birds all the way up to catch the boat for a CQ det off the coast of Jax??? Or why we would have to cover our assigned boat for non-flying activities like ammo onloads when a Norfolk based HC squadron could (pre-HSC)?

 

[Pags]

I could never understand why we (Jax HS) would have to send birds all the way up to catch the boat for a CQ det off the coast of Jax??? Or why we would have to cover our assigned boat for non-flying activities like ammo onloads when a Norfolk based HC squadron could (pre-HSC)?

Probably because the HC squadrons were busy with Gator SAR and ammo offloads from the AE side.

 

[helolumpy]

Yup. HS-75. Kind of like having two dedicated SPECWAR squadrons, then killing one, and then realizing we probably need two.

HS-75 was never a dedicated CQ squadron. They covered them for the active duty side (once or twice a year), unless it was a CAG-20 CQ then they were responsible for going to sea with their Air Wing.

The last dedicated CQ squadron was HC-16 out of NAS P'cola. That squadron stood down and became a department of the base to provide station SAR.

The Navy looked to save funds by requiring the fleet squadrons cover the CQ requirement since the early 90's. This coincided with the retirement of the USS Forrestal

The East Coast HS/HSC squadrons get tagged for most of the VT CQ's because it's easiest to operate the T-45's out of Cecil Field and use the Jax Op Area.
The majority of CQ dets have been covered by the Jax squadrons because they are carrier based squadrons. So we'd pack-up and fly up to Norfolk and embark up there. (When the JFK was in Mayport, then obviously we'd go to Mayport)

The Norfolk based squadrons cover the majority of Amphib SAR, VertRep missions (ammo on load) and do a lot of pax transfers to and from ships in the VACAPES Op Area, so they don't get CQ missions as much as the Jax squadrons.

I know the traditional HC squadrons have covered the CQ requirement but it was generally when there were no traditional HS squadrons available.
With the movement of the Jax squadrons to Norfolk, this will obviously change.

The West Coast HS squadrons covered FRS CQ on off San Diego. Since the requirements are a lot less (very few VT CQ dets) the west coast guys don't cover as many CQ requirements.

The SPECOPS squadron requirement is a completely different discussion.

 

[Gatordev]

Words

Okay, maybe "dedicated" is the wrong word, but they went to the boat quite often. I get to hear about it at work all the time.

The SPECOPS squadron requirement is a completely different discussion.

Which has got a lot to do with history and tradition. Regardless, they probably shouldn't go away.

 

[helolumpy]

Which has got a lot to do with history and tradition. Regardless, they probably shouldn't go away.

The cutting of HCS-5 had nothing to do with history or tradition it came down to needs of the Navy.
Prior to 9/11 both HCS-4 & 5 did a lot of work with the SEALs and in Joint Exercises but did not deploy with Navy units often.

Prior to 9/11 when units were being cut, both HCS 4 & 5 were on the chopping block. When 9/11 happened they were pulled off.

So the question is why were they on the chopping block? My opinion is that they did not provide obvious benefit to the Navy for the cost of their operations. Neither squadron did much integration with the Airwings. Both squadrons tried to get involved in Operations Northern and Southern Watch, but they couldn't get deployed.

When it came time to eliminate units, the Navy looked at these two squadron as providing little benefit to the Navy at large. Mind you the people making these decisions are the Flags who were BATGRUs, CAG, DESRONs and PHIBRONs. None of them had much interaction with the HCS squadrons. Since the HCS squadrons mostly worked with the SEALs and other SOF units combined with the fact that the SEALs couldn't use them in a actual Joint Operation (SOCOM rule), then the HCS squadrons were on the outside looking in.

9/11 happens and things change. HSC-84 has proved continuously that they are an excellent capability and are being used (some say overused) in theater. With SOCOM allowing 'conventional' lift assets to be used to transport SOF (at the SOF units commanders discretion) HSC-84 now can provide a valuable asset to the Joint fight.

Now there is a SEAL as SOCOM and he has asked the Navy why the SEALs do not have more organic lift capability. (This argument raises its head about every 4-5 years) The Navy now has to respond to a Combatant Commander with an answer, instead of an internal answer which was always the fight earlier.

Of course the final answer will come down to $$$ and how these units should be funded (Title X vs. MPF-11), but with the increase reliance on SOF in both theaters, the need for organic lift is evident to the Navy; hence HSC-85's transition to SOF support.

So you point that the decision was made due to 'tradition and history' is flawed. The decision was made based on the cost benefit the HCS squadrons were providing the Navy AT THAT TIME. Since 9-11, HSC-84 has been deployed continuously in-country and is doing great work.

For the HCS squadrons to be recognized by Big Navy they needed to provide a capability that was needed. It took a war that relied heavily on SOF presence to have that need realized.

The discussion as to whether these units should have gone away is now moot. The fact is they provided a niche capability, which the Navy decided was not needed in the Reserves. The Navy possessed the same capability (skill wise) in the active fleet, albeit broken up into 10 different squadrons. The Navy now sees the issue different due to the reasons I have stated, so they are doing it.

 

[Gatordev]

So you point that the decision was made due to 'tradition and history' is flawed. The decision was made based on the cost benefit the HCS squadrons were providing the Navy AT THAT TIME. Since 9-11, HSC-84 has been deployed continuously in-country and is doing great work.

For the HCS squadrons to be recognized by Big Navy they needed to provide a capability that was needed. It took a war that relied heavily on SOF presence to have that need realized.

The discussion as to whether these units should have gone away is now moot. The fact is they provided a niche capability, which the Navy decided was not needed in the Reserves. The Navy possessed the same capability (skill wise) in the active fleet, albeit broken up into 10 different squadrons. The Navy now sees the issue different due to the reasons I have stated, so they are doing it.

That was not my point at all. What I was getting at is the reason that the mission stayed with the Reserves was more of a tradition/history thing, not that they went away because of that tradition/history. I was also being a bit tongue and cheek.

As for "Navy" seeing it as a valuable asset, that's not completely true. For a while, before HCS-5 went away, CHWR was actually gunning for the both squadrons and trying to get them to lose the mission. And this was after 9/11. A foolish plan, I think you would agree.

I promise, I get a HCS history lesson at least once a week, so I'm not knocking the squadrons nor their capability. Quite the contrary. The big question right now no one really has an answer to is when -85 will be anywhere near ready to go. But that's a whole other topic.