• 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

Why don't the Marines fly H-60's?

Hotdogs

I don’t care if I hurt your feelings
pilot
The Sikorsky battle hawk demonstrator could have easily filled the role of the Cobra for the MC and then some, all while still leaving the utility options and parts commonality intact. As it is, even the Navy's MH-60S (as much as I hate a lot of its limitations) is very capable with its MTS, M-197, Hellfire (or guided or unguided rockets) plus a .50 in each door and M-240 in the windows. If we really wanted to make it a gunship on the cheap we could add some of the options from the -60G or L. and add miniguns or .50s to the gunners windows as well as 2 extra EWS stations.

Good thoughts, but I disagree with you on a couple things.

Here's the issue I don't think you're understanding, unless they mod the wing stubs on the 60s to prevent it from obscuring the door gunner's view, then you're essentially taking out the field of view for crew served weapons for that particular side if you mount hellfire on it. Secondly, we put a 20mm and 30mm on the Cobra and Apache respectively for a reason, .50cal and 7.62 are good for close in fight and suppressing the unobserved shot from the side, but if you really want to pound away at a target with good penetration from relatively far away with any accuracy, you're going to need a turreted 20 or 30mm. The TSS and TADs systems are way more integrated into wing stores and boresighted to the pilot's helmet and reticle for that reason. Fixed 20mm on a wing stub may have a lower CEP and mil dispersion, but you can only shoot that thing in a dive to be accurate, so it's just useless blocking a door gunner's field of view flying around unless your getting ready to tip in on something, hence the reason why an attack helo needs off axis cannons. Furthermore, let's say you do mount the turret of a Zulu or Apache on a 60, how is a the left seat of a 60 suppose to engage targets on the right side of the aircraft while trying to look through his copilot? or is he just going to be heads down in the MFD? Where's the turret going be put? under the chin? belly? Are the rocket pods and HMLs going to articulate and boresight to the sensor? If so, is that going to be a standalone HYD system? or is it going to have to be reworked internally? That's a lot of work and plumbing to do something that we already have aircraft for...so no I doubt a Navy 60s has anywhere near the capability of a Zulu or E model Apache, unless it gets mods thrown onto it heavily, and I feel for the poor avionics crew who would have to work on it. A SOF JTAC does not equal a conventional JTAC asking for a fire support answer, completely different customer and needs altogether.

You could slap stuff on and rig weapons systems onto an aircraft, but that doesn't mean it is the best airframe to do the job, much like the Harrier carrying AMRAAM discussed a little while ago. Does that mean the 60 can't launch hellfire, have CSW, and do OAS missions? Not at all, I'm sure there are plenty of situations in which that aircraft could be the low side answer. That being said, if you're going to go rolling deep into high threat indian territory, you're going to want to have an aircraft like an Apache or Cobra to run around and punch dudes in the face with flexibility and ease, and not a ghettoized half baked solution of an aircraft that was searching for a problem that never existed.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Good thoughts, but I disagree with you on a couple things.

Here's the issue I don't think you're understanding, unless they mod the wing stubs on the 60s to prevent it from obscuring the door gunner's view, then you're essentially taking out the field of view for crew served weapons for that particular side if you mount hellfire on it. Secondly, we put a 20mm and 30mm on the Cobra and Apache respectively for a reason, .50cal and 7.62 are good for close in fight and suppressing the unobserved shot from the side, but if you really want to pound away at a target with good penetration from relatively far away with any accuracy, you're going to need a turreted 20 or 30mm. The TSS and TADs systems are way more integrated into wing stores and boresighted to the pilot's helmet and reticle for that reason. Fixed 20mm on a wing stub may have a lower CEP and mil dispersion, but you can only shoot that thing in a dive to be accurate, so it's just useless blocking a door gunner's field of view flying around unless your getting ready to tip in on something, hence the reason why an attack helo needs off axis cannons. Furthermore, let's say you do mount the turret of a Zulu or Apache on a 60, how is a the left seat of a 60 suppose to engage targets on the right side of the aircraft while trying to look through his copilot? or is he just going to be heads down in the MFD? Where's the turret going be put? under the chin? belly? Are the rocket pods and HMLs going to articulate and boresight to the sensor? If so, is that going to be a standalone HYD system? or is it going to have to be reworked internally? That's a lot of work and plumbing to do something that we already have aircraft for...so no I doubt a Navy 60s has anywhere near the capability of a Zulu or E model Apache, unless it gets mods thrown onto it heavily, and I feel for the poor avionics crew who would have to work on it. A SOF JTAC does not equal a conventional JTAC asking for a fire support answer, completely different customer and needs altogether.

You could slap stuff on and rig weapons systems onto an aircraft, but that doesn't mean it is the best airframe to do the job, much like the Harrier carrying AMRAAM discussed a little while ago. Does that mean the 60 can't launch hellfire, have CSW, and do OAS missions? Not at all, I'm sure there are plenty of situations in which that aircraft could be the low side answer. That being said, if you're going to go rolling deep into high threat indian territory, you're going to want to have an aircraft like an Apache or Cobra to run around and punch dudes in the face with flexibility and ease, and not a ghettoized half baked solution of an aircraft that was searching for a problem that never existed.
My earlier comment about making USMC use the H-60 was ONLY for replacing the UH-1. I don't think that the H-60 would be a good one for one replacement for the AH-1 at all. However, the H-60S and the UH-1Y are so close in capabilities and roles it's hard to say one is better than the other. I'd be willing to bet you could swap an MH-60S in for a UH-1Y into an HMLA and never have a mission impact beyond the tail rotor not falling apart when it rains and the HMLA wouldn't have to worry about figuring out how to leave the wheels on the beach to best goon up the fly on. If the UH-1Y had a hover coupler you could trade it into an HSC squadron and no one would ever know. In fact, old school L-class SAR DETs used to fly H-1Ns so there was parts commonality between the USN and USMC H-1s and the L-Class supply and AIMD didn't have to worry about a different T/M/S. Same thing for HC SAR DETs when they flew Phrogs. So maybe the USN should have got some H-1s for SAR DETs instead of H-60s....
 

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Yep. That thing looks like it could spend at least 5 hours in the -D before it needs gas.

Almost as silly as this...
file.php
 

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
It doesn't cost $120 million a copy because it can drop LGB and carry AIM-9
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
You can do tons when you don't put 1k worth of weight on the rotor head for autofold...
You mean like take an extra 20 minutes to fold like the UH-1Y?

I don't get what's with all the recent disdain for the folding head. It's a very useful feature for a navalized helo that offers a lot of benefits.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
In a conflict against a peer competitor people will be shooting at you with advanced air defense systems while you make runs to the grocery store.
SEAD means never having to say you're sorry. :)
 

SynixMan

HKG Based Artificial Excrement Pilot
pilot
Contributor
You mean like take an extra 20 minutes to fold like the UH-1Y?

I don't get what's with all the recent disdain for the folding head. It's a very useful feature for a navalized helo that offers a lot of benefits.

I love auto fold, but I wonder if we couldn't have thrown a few bucks at it and replaced the somewhat unreliable and vintage 70s relay style fold system. I'm sure the guys thinking CH-60S weren't worried about it, but any mission config these days is max gross weight and maybe sacrificing some fuel to get there. That's a small problem the Battlehawk doesn't have to worry about.

I think the forward firing ordnance gives a great capability to a service (USN) that wasn't willing to buy dedicated gunships. They serve their purpose and have a ton of possibilities in the right hands.
 

busdriver

Well-Known Member
None
A reasonable self escort 60 would end up looking about the same as a UH-1Y; crew served guns and a couple rocket pods or hellfire. The external mounts we bought have a provision for pods mounts below the guns, we just didn't buy those (picture on page three). But you wouldn't be carrying many troops, very small team only. Our aircraft are very heavy.

The battlehawk would be every bit as heavy as a DAP and wouldn't be able to carry anything other than ammo.
 
Top