Sea Based Aircraft?

[egscharf]

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140413/NEWS05/304140027/Army-explores-sea-basing-helos

 

This is coming from "The Army Inquirer", so take it with a grain of salt (hehe pun intended), but any thoughts on this? I for one would love a tour in the Pacific. The only issue I see is that (having worked on many boats as a commercial fisherman/boat owner) nearly EVERYTHING on a seaworthy vessel MUST be marinized, and like the article says, aircraft would be no exception. This means huge expenses. Even the wiring on boats is special (anti-corrosion tin coated)..

[aeroscout]

Corrosion control in a saline environment is certainly a pre eminent concern. Prevention is the best. Detection early is the next priority, and then rapidly addressing any corrosion properly.

[Velocity173]

Already been done several times in the past. Back in the late 80s KW guys operating off of ships shot up some Iranian gun boats.

[Hotdogs]

There is a difference between using a boat as a lilly pad, and using it to do Amphibious operations anywhere in the world. It's a big rabbit hole to go down and lots of things have to be addressed. A couple items off of the top of my head: the logistics chain aboard vessels, deck space, HERO safe ordnance, command and control relationships (Army will have to play the J game more), and lastly as mentioned above saltwater corrosion. Training pilots to fly off of a boat is the last concern - and probably the easiest alligator to kill. I do know Army pilots do bounce off of Navy ships from time to time.

 

Not really an issue with it, but as the article already says: Is there really a need for it? I can't really think of anything the Army brings to the table on a boat that the Navy and Marine Corps can't already handle. It honestly sounds like a general trying to create a demand for something when it doesn't exist. "We don't want to be left out of Air-Sea Battle, so here is a weak ass excuse to get us involved"

[Joe_P148]

Hotdogs is correct.

 

This is a political spin up generated by the Col mentioned in the Article. I won't say his name but he is a former 25TH CAB commander. The vision of the legacy 25TH aviators is to create a pacific task force capable of amphibious operations. That's what MAWs and MEUs are for not the Army. Everyone looking for task and purpose in a post OEF world.

[StockTrader]

Already been done several times in the past. Back in the late 80s KW guys operating off of ships shot up some Iranian gun boats.

 

I thought that was the 160th with their little birds. Stopping the iranians from laying magnetic mines down i believe. From what I read it was kind of a one off mission though.

[Velocity173]

 

I thought that was the 160th with their little birds. Stopping the iranians from laying magnetic mines down i believe. From what I read it was kind of a one off mission though.

Prime Chance had AH-6 and OH-58s operating for a few months at sea during that op. Our WOCS commander who pinned me had an AM with V for destroying an Iranian gunboat in 88. Elements of the 82nd continued to remain DLQd for years after that op. NG units are always getting deck quals. More recently (2012) TX and SC NG units have taken part in exercises at sea. Not just deck quals but living at sea. Haiti (Uphold Democracy) in 1994 had 160th deployed for an extended time on the USS America.

 

Shipboard ops are nothing new for the Army. This is just the newest story on the feasibility of Army Aviation at sea. When I came in the Joint Ship Helicopter Integration Study proved that Army Aviation could operate for limited durations at sea. It's even a task in the ATM.

 

Now, do I see a permanent change in doctrine that has Army Aviation units assigned to ship for regular deployments? Nope, and the article doesn't imply that either. It just says the Army is exploring the idea of having aircraft operate from ship. I'm saying that's been done before and successfully at that. This is nothing more than the idea of CSAR in the Army. They don't have dedicated units by doctrine but they are required to do it and they train as such.

[StockTrader]

Learn something new every day. Never knew they had 58's doing that. Guess they left that part out of the book lol.

[Rob Lyman]

I was new aboard HSL-44 in 1987 when a couple of our SH-60B detachments participated in Ernest Will, Prime Chance and Praying Mantis. 160th, although we didn't really know who they were, operated off our detachments' ships (USS Klakring, USS Hawes, and USS Samuel B. Roberts/USS Trenton).

 

There is no question it can be done and has been done. Doctrinally, short term shipboard ops are OK the way the Army does them, but the losses will mount up if the Army doesn't learn to do things more like the Navy when it comes to shipboard ops.

 

I have done shipboard ops both as a Naval Aviator and as an Army Aviator. The way the Army does it is a cake walk....within sight of land, calm seas and under NVGs. The Navy has been doing unaided shipboard ops in rough seas for decades. NVGs only recently became part of the equation.

 

Consequently, there are decades of experience that have lead to the evolution of the Navy's shipboard ops, while the Army's experience has been minute in comparison. Can it be done? Sure! But the learning curve is WAY steeper than you might think. An anecdotal reinforcement of this is the attitude of the NG "experts" who came down from another state to teach us. They acted like they had done something special by landing on the back of a training ship in Pensacola Bay, surrounded by lights which offered an easily recognizable horizon. Yet they couldn't use a Shipboard Facilities Resume to save their life.

[CharyouTree]

An anecdotal reinforcement of this is the attitude of the NG "experts" who came down from another state to teach us. They acted like they had done something special by landing on the back of a training ship in Pensacola Bay, surrounded by lights which offered an easily recognizable horizon. Yet they couldn't use a Shipboard Facilities Resume to save their life.

What state? I'm hoping it wasn't mine. :/

[Rob Lyman]

I'd rather not say. But one of the first things we did in the Navy when landing on a ship other than our own was to check out the flight deck size, height above the water, lighting, etc. These guys couldn't tell me the correct height off the water for the training ship in Pensacola. They told me it was 35'. As I recall it was actually only 7-10'. I broke out the SFR and showed them. Its not so much a slam on them. They just didn't know better.

 

The real issue is that you (the Army, not you specifically ) don't know what you don't know. It takes strong instrument skills to do it at night without a horizon, and the Army doesn't engage that environment near as actively as the Navy. The skills can be taught, but the value and importance of the skills have been paid for in Naval Aviator lives. By the same token, I wouldn't expect the Navy to do as well as the Army over land, with a few exceptions.

[Rob1237051]

This seems like something already completely covered by the navy and marines. ..I thought the whole point of separate services was specialization.

[Velocity173]

This seems like something already completely covered by the navy and marines. ..I thought the whole point of separate services was specialization.

The Army had MEDEVAC completely covered as well but that didn't prevent them from letting the AF in on the action.

 

Mark my words, this is just the beginning of Army Aviation dominance at sea. They have more ships than Navy and more helicopters than the Marines. Tugboats pulling barges with V-280s on the back. That's the future and everyone just needs to get onboard with it.

[ShaneWey]

That's the future and everyone just needs to get onboard with it.

Haaa, I see what you did there. Sorry I couldn't resist!

[Rob1237051]

The future of arrrrrrrrrrmy aviation.

[akscott60]

Boats? Who needs boats? The 47 can float.

[Hotdogs]

Good stuff.