USAF Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH)

One thing is that the US has typically preferred to conduct meaningful, sustained air operations where it can also field effective CSAR. This was always going to be a problem within the first and and perhaps the second island chains. CCA and MQ-25 might ease this issue, to the extent this concern about recovering downed crew limits how the USAF and USN manned air assets are deployed and used.
 
Case 1.
Case 3, the increase in spoofing and GPS jamming, as that of lawmakers assassination attempts, plus the hybridization of warfare, makes having the W a necessary threshold for key political members.
 
Training_Dummy said:
One thing is that the US has typically preferred to conduct meaningful, sustained air operations where it can also field effective CSAR. This was always going to be a problem within the first and and perhaps the second island chains. CCA and MQ-25 might ease this issue, to the extent this concern about recovering downed crew limits how the USAF and USN manned air assets are deployed and used.
Click to expand...
.
That's for a CSAR version of the MV-75 (V-280) to deal with. ;)
 
While the Pave Hawk used the DAIRCM system, the Whiskey was not equipped with the countermeasure.
Click to expand...
WTF? Why is the Whiskey not equipped with a DIRCM system?!?

To convert the combat-designed aircraft into a comfortable VIP transport, the service asked vendors in an April 17 notice to industry to reconfigure the aircraft to accommodate seating for 11 passengers while preserving the search-and-rescue equipment, such as the rescue hoist, defensive weapons, and medical stations.

Changes include work on the cabin floor structure and installing or upgrading:
  • Crashworthy seating subsystem
  • Restrain systems
  • Cabin interior configuration
  • Weight and balance system
  • Emergency egress system
  • Oxygen system
  • Electrical system
Contractors will also need to remove the following to make the “green” helicopter “blue” for civilian government service: rescue team seat, isolated personnel litter, gun system, chaff/flare buckets, and armor on doors and floors.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand why they're removing some of those pieces. Sure, pull the guns, but if it's a VIP transport shouldn't it have the chaff/flare, rescue team seat and litter at least installable on short notice? Plus, doesn't the armor help with quieting?
 
DIRCM is probably pretty expensive to maintain. How much risk to take (especially when flying VIP mission in one of the most secure areas on the planet) is something the generals get paid for.
It may surprise you to find out that most countries (even the rich ones) usually don't buy ASE for every aircraft. They have "A kits" that are the mounts and wiring, and "B Kits" that are the actually ASE systems. An old friend of mine was gripping to me that they never got to train with the systems till they went to the warzone. Then they got a lot of practice.
 
yasotay said:
DIRCM is probably pretty expensive to maintain. How much risk to take (especially when flying VIP mission in one of the most secure areas on the planet) is something the generals get paid for.
It may surprise you to find out that most countries (even the rich ones) usually don't buy ASE for every aircraft. They have "A kits" that are the mounts and wiring, and "B Kits" that are the actually ASE systems. An old friend of mine was gripping to me that they never got to train with the systems till they went to the warzone. Then they got a lot of practice.
Click to expand...
Okay, keeping the mounts and wiring makes sense.

Really wish DIRCM would return fire to those assholes lasing helos... Or fit a NightSun and hold it on the shithead till the cops show up.
 
RavenOne said:
Interesting a year ago there was possible FMS approval to sell the Jolly Green II to Norway

https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Ma...lay/Article/4241742/norway-hh-60w-helicopters

But now as of this week, change of heart as they rather spend the money on more AW101 albeit HH-101

https://www.forsvaretsforum.no/fsk-...byr-norge-helikoptre-for-26-milliarder/447512

cheers
Click to expand...

Your second link doesn't talk about HH-101.

Are you referring to the announcement earlier this year that the Norwegian Armed Forces will be taking over general SAR duties in Tromsø, replacing a civilian company? Or is there another announcement for Combat SAR helicopters?

https://www.fw-mag.com/shownews/903...-more-aw101-ldquo-sar-queen-rdquo-helicopters
 
There is so much stuff they're trying to stuff into it for this mission, just compare how much larger the AW101 is. I've heard critics say this somehow makes the H-60 a bad helicopter when you're comparing it to the AW101 or another similarly larger bird, but that's a stupid view to have. It's trying to make something designed as the premier squad-level transport back in the day fulfill a long-range role once done by the much larger Jolly Green. There is only so much you can expect to achieve with the volume available.

Really it would have been much more suitable as the USAF's replacement for the old UH-1Ns. I'm still surprised the MH-139 got selected for that job. I'm sure the MH-139 and AW139 are nice helicopters but considering the very widespread use of the H-60 by the Army and Navy you'd think it would be a logistics no-brain-required decision.

Maybe outside of those CSAR pilots and crews the rest of the Air Force could never really make sense of the borderline heretical rotary-wing devices that only fly through such abnormal and untrustworthy means.
 
H-60 is not the first aircraft where someone has tried to "stuff ten pounds into a five pound sack."

The helicopter community I have been told have always been the stepchildren of the air service. At least right up to the point where they save you from POW status. Then you get a beer at the club. Next day back to "other people" status.
 
The H-60 being crammed into the CSAR role dates to the post EAGLE CLAW era when the kitted-out HH-53 Pave Lows were forcibly transferred from ARRS to Special Ops. Other than the ancient HH-3 there was nothing to fill the resulting gap, so ARRS starting speccing CSAR HH-60s. It wasn't a great choice, the crew can't even stand up in the cabin, but it was available.

The USCG's adoption of the HH-60, though, was just due to cost and procurement laziness. So many better options available by then.
 
Kiltonge said:
The H-60 being crammed into the CSAR role dates to the post EAGLE CLAW era when the kitted-out HH-53 Pave Lows were forcibly transferred from ARRS to Special Ops. Other than the ancient HH-3 there was nothing to fill the resulting gap, so ARRS starting speccing CSAR HH-60s. It wasn't a great choice, the crew can't even stand up in the cabin, but it was available.

The USCG's adoption of the HH-60, though, was just due to cost and procurement laziness. So many better options available by then.
Click to expand...
No ARRS aircraft were used in Eagle Claw. They flew repurposed Marine RH-53Ds which had no degraded environment systems or terrain-following capability.
 
Air Superior said:
No ARRS aircraft were used in Eagle Claw. They flew repurposed Marine RH-53Ds which had no degraded environment systems or terrain-following capability.
Click to expand...

As I wrote, post EAGLE CLAW the ARRS were stripped of HH-53s to build up SOF capability, leaving the ARRS with ancient and underequipped HH-3s.

The HH-60 was a knee-jerk reaction to get something modern into the ARRS, but even the early iterations of that were defunded because CSAR was seen as a bolt-on task that SOF could do when they weren't busy. Nobody could even decide under which Command ARRS should live, let alone give them money.

Then DESERT STORM came around and CSAR was a disaster.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom