MH-60R and MH-60S

[[email protected]]

There's an article on the new Seahawk variants at:

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/aw100906p1.xml

Interesting stuff.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> There's an article on the new Seahawk variants at:
>
> http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/aw100906p1.xml
>
> Interesting stuff.

Yeah, that is quite comprehensive indeed. Thanks for posting that!

That's interesting how the idea to shape MH-60R/MH-60S squadron for the
carrier strike group evolves. First I've heard about two squadrons, ten
aicraft each. Newer option is a 12-a/c HSM with "Romeos" and an 8-a/c
HSC with "Sierras". Of course, not all the helos are going to stay on
the carrier - some of these may be distributed among other ships of the
group.

With Vikings gone, and Hornets occupied with many other tasks, Seahawks
become the most important ASuW asset now...

Best regards,
Jacek

[Henry J Cobb]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>There's an article on the new Seahawk variants at:
>>
>>http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/aw100906p1.xml
>>
>>Interesting stuff.
>
> Yeah, that is quite comprehensive indeed. Thanks for posting that!
>
> That's interesting how the idea to shape MH-60R/MH-60S squadron for the
> carrier strike group evolves. First I've heard about two squadrons, ten
> aicraft each. Newer option is a 12-a/c HSM with "Romeos" and an 8-a/c
> HSC with "Sierras". Of course, not all the helos are going to stay on
> the carrier - some of these may be distributed among other ships of the
> group.
>
> With Vikings gone, and Hornets occupied with many other tasks, Seahawks
> become the most important ASuW asset now...

With the anti-mine capabilities of the MH-60S, won't we see MH-60S on
LCS and MH-60R on destroyers?

Then the carriers should carry mostly MH-60S for cargo and rescue missions.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
>
> With the anti-mine capabilities of the MH-60S, won't we see MH-60S on
> LCS and MH-60R on destroyers?
>
> Then the carriers should carry mostly MH-60S for cargo and rescue missions.
>
> -HJC

Well, I think there is still a lot of place for MH-60R on carriers -
due to their ASW and ASuW roles. And I would not overestimate MH-60S
anti-mine capabilities - the Navy still tends to keep their MH-53E or
future CH-53K versions.

One good thing is that aircraft (from just two CVW-assigned squadrons,
no longer a myriad of separate detachments from various units) may be
rotating between particular ships according to maintenance and
warfighting needs.

Best regards,
Jacek

[Henry J Cobb]

wrote:
> One good thing is that aircraft (from just two CVW-assigned squadrons,
> no longer a myriad of separate detachments from various units) may be
> rotating between particular ships according to maintenance and
> warfighting needs.

Will they lillypad out for a day on a JHSV?

Given the USN's limited in-house airborne refueling capacity, you could
send a pair of helicopters equipped for the exact role needed and refuel
them from either a JHSV or LCS close to the spot needed.

These new ship classes are smaller, faster and stealthier than the
carriers and so can extend the reach of the squadrons (for say ASW) over
a vast area.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
>
> Will they lillypad out for a day on a JHSV?
>
> Given the USN's limited in-house airborne refueling capacity, you could
> send a pair of helicopters equipped for the exact role needed and refuel
> them from either a JHSV or LCS close to the spot needed.
>
> These new ship classes are smaller, faster and stealthier than the
> carriers and so can extend the reach of the squadrons (for say ASW) over
> a vast area.
>
> -HJC

Frankly, have no idea. But according to the article MH-60R is going to
be a kind of mini-AWACS like some Russian Kamov helicopters or British
Sea King AEW - in terms of controlling surface, sub-surface and
low-flying airborne targets...

[[email protected]]

It still bugs me that the new Seahawks have no MAD (Magnetic Anomaly
Detection) gear.

Something like that could prove useful in the acoustically-diffult
littoral waters.

[Henry J Cobb]

wrote:
> It still bugs me that the new Seahawks have no MAD (Magnetic Anomaly
> Detection) gear.
>
> Something like that could prove useful in the acoustically-diffult
> littoral waters.

There's also tons of sunk junk.

At least in deep water when you find something metal just under the
surface you can be fairly sure that it's a working sub.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

napisal(a):
> It still bugs me that the new Seahawks have no MAD (Magnetic Anomaly
> Detection) gear.
>
> Something like that could prove useful in the acoustically-diffult
> littoral waters.

On the other hand, SH/HH/MH-60 family, thanks to Hellfires and EO
turrets, became more something like an sea-based attack helicopter.