‘So that others may live … or die’

‘So that others may live … or die’

Tomorrow’s naval environment can’t be all rail guns and SSBN(X) and high-end unmanned fighter jets. No matter what kind of advanced equipment sails in the future fleet, there’ll still be a role for the hard-working, often-overlooked naval helicopter, one pilot argued in an excellent piece Wednesday at Small Wars Journal. Lt. Cmdr. Benjamin “BJ” Armstrong writes that if the Navy  is going to continue dealing with “irregular” threats at sea — i.e. pirates — as well as keeping its traditional blue water missions, there’s no better bargain than its MH-60 helicopters and their crews.

Get a load of this:

The MH-60S Block III Armed Helo’s that now deploy with amphibious assault ships like BATAAN come in the gunship variant.  These aircraft have a wide range of armament options that make it a highly capable platform. You can buy nearly a squadron of them for the cost of one Joint Strike Fighter. The crews that fly them like LT Lee Sherman, LT Chris Schneider, AWS2 Joey Faircloth, and AWS3 Josh Teague, are trained in a number of mission areas that lend themselves to maritime security operations and irregular warfare.


Did you copy that, naval aviation leadership? For a single F-35C Lightning II, Armstrong argues you can get a batch of helicopters that will perform search and rescue, resupply the fleet at sea, help prosecute pirate takedowns — among other missions. The motto of his unit, Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 28 Detachment 2, is “So that others may live … or die.”

But Hollywood never made an action movie about a Navy helicopter unit — even though it should — and rotary wing sailors evidently are worried they could lose out in the coming Big Crunch. Armstrong describes how valuable one of his unit’s helicopters was during a counter-piracy operation, and he argues that Navy 60s and their crews must remain part of the picture if the fleet wants to stay at its most effective.

The operation to secure the M/V Caravos Horizon demonstrates the critical role of the amphibious fleet and rotary-wing aviation to maritime security and American policy around the world. It also reinforces the idea that the right platforms, purposely trained and led people, and strong global partnerships are central to success in naval irregular warfare and in the hybrid maritime conflicts that the United States Navy may face in the coming decades. It must be said that for each aircraft and pilot there are dozens of maintenance professionals and supporting personnel that make our Navy’s global reach possible. Maintainers are the bedrock of the rotary-wing team that successfully completed this mission.

The good news for Armstrong is that the odds seem solid that no matter what happens to the surface fleet, the Navy will try to keep its helicopter units in proportion — or, if it begins to cut ships, it could even keep many of its helicopter units and send more of them to sea to increase the range and power of a smaller fleet.

Join the Conversation

Good to read this. These are what we need to counter the asymmetric swarming boat hysteria. Not half a billion $ dollar speed boats with one gun (LCS).

This is another example of how DoD leaderships’ obsession with unrealistically expensive acquisition programs increases internal disharmony and friction across the DoD enterprise. Come on leaders — prove to us you can sensibly manage the acquisition portfolio across the spectrum of mission requirements — and within budget, too..

Too True!

Amen

While “Hollywood never made an action movie about a Navy helicopter unit…” specifically. Naval helicopter operations was a significant plot point of “The Bridges at Toko-Ri”.
Who can forget Mickey Rooney in his top-hat and scarf

Or simply place a 4-man security detachment, with a M-2, a HellFire single rail launcher with a couple of reloads, and a MULE on at least a majority of the potential targets. You could even substitute a manually trained LAU-61 with 19 rounds of 70mm APKWS for the Hellfire! Last I checked that swarming boat could NOT outrun a laser designator and neither the Hellfire nor the APKWS would see much of a challenge in outmaneuvering any boat! Use the M-2 for warning shots! :-)

Hmmmm.… you can load a LAU-61 on a MH-60, right?

One of my personal favorites!

This poses all kinds of legal issues…Shipping companies can (and are) paying private security firms for this job. It’s not the job of the military to pay for armed guards for private companies.

If you’re talking about piracy there is no legal issue for the US, the constitution claims jurisdiction on acts of piracy on the high seas committed against the US. If you’re talking about a nation state attacking commercial traffic of other nations on the high seas that’s an act of war, which also means there is no legal issue. Free movement of trade on the high seas is in every nation’s interest.

Absolutely the military has a job to do here, I’m talking about the legal issues of stationing troops on private vessels. What happens if the ship gets taken? Is the military now responsible/ liable for damages? Is the vessel still treated as a civilian vessel, or is it now considered a military vessel, subject to all the laws and regulations that entails? What if the captain and the Naval personnel disagree over tactics, course, or reactions to threats? Who makes the final decision? When foriegn owned ships show up with foriegn military units/wepaons onboard in US ports, is that an invasion? There are all kinds of issues that come up, it’s not as simple as just slapping a missle launcher on a ship…

Hmmm.… now lets see…. one one hand you have the pirates, and for CENTURIES it has been considered almost the duty of regular naval forces to confront and destroy pirates wherever they are found. And as for combatants that happen to attack merchant vessels, Id offer that there is long standing precedent for military detachments onboard merchant vessels. http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​D​e​f​e​n​s​i​v​e​l​y​_​E​q​u​i​p​ped…

I think that the “legal issues” you are talking about are in the same vein as the “legal issues” touted by the modern day TV “ambulance chasers”, i.e. lawyers in search of work. Perhaps a division of labor is in order. On one hand you have the pirates (and small boat attacks), and on the other you have tort reform. Just as an outside guess, Im thinking that no military member will play with the tort laws!

I was speaking more about International Law, not tort law. But you knew that.

“The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 identified mariners aboard United States flagged merchant ships as military personnel in time of war. Neutrality Acts prevented arming of United States flagged merchant ships until 17 November 1941″
from wikipedia as well

and
“But legal problems abound for ships that carry guns.

The first hurdle is making sure the countries where ships embark and disembark the weapons will allow them to do so — a legal nightmare in corrupt Middle Eastern ports with terrorism problems.

Then there’s the issue of which law applies onboard the ship if a weapon is discharged: the shooter’s nationality, the law of the country whose flag the ship is flying, or the territorial waters of the country the ship is in.

In at least one case, a private security consultant said, an armed team had rented weapons from the Djibouti government then was forced to drop them over the side of the ship to avoid illegally importing them into the country where they were due to disembark. The consultant asked for anonymity because he did not wish to compromise his business.

Kenneth C. Randall, the Dean of the University of Alabama School of Law and an expert in international piracy law, said there were complex issues for companies providing legally armed private guards.

“Commercial vessels have the right of innocent passage through most coastal waters. Some nations might say once you’re armed, you’re no longer innocent,” he said.

Many questions have yet to be tested in court: should ships wait for the pirates to fire before returning fire? Is it still self-defense if the pirates are not firing at the shooter, instead aiming at the captain’s bridge? What happens if the pirates are attacking from a “mother ship” — a vessel that has already been pirated — and civilians onboard are being used as human shields?

There are issues, whether you want to try and understand them is up to you.

LCS and MH-60S are not in competition, LCS is designed to carry multiple manned and unmanned helos as part of its ASuW module. And at under half a Billion, its carrying more aviation assets than the over a Billion-Dollar Burkes.

I also understand the concept of “Pax Britannia” and the East India Company’s frigates from the 19th century, AND the fact that there are many possible interpretations of most aspects of international law. I also understand that there are many people who do not share our more litigious view of world affairs to the point of declaring themselves above such artificialities of “civilized” peoples. Did I mention the Somali and other pirates on the high seas?

Let me offer what I might consider to be one of the finer points of what is usually considered international law, i.e. the laws of war. If one party to a conflict decides to ignore the “laws of war”, the other party might just assume a more “laissez faire” approach to those same “laws of armed conflict”. In the specific case we were discussing, there are plenty of international laws against piracy! :-) I know, I know! This theory wont make the Harvard Law Review, but….… perhaps its time to resurrect Admirality Law and yes there still are yardarms on naval vessels!

I don’t think it’s a matter of anyone understanding the technical legalities of putting arms on private merchant ships, it’s more that we weren’t talking about that.

The basic hulls are $480 million, and that is without anything included. It’s ASuW module doesn’t even exist yet, as do the rest, and when they are included it will bring the price tag to well over half a billion $. They are 4000 ton speed boats with a single 57mm gun for $480 million each.

MH-60S is a new concept for the navy, saving for PERHAPS the older UH-1 which was used as a limited gunship (HAL-3). However, the ASuW role is a subsidiary role for the navy, and we are finding that lobbing helfires at speedboats is a great idea in concept, but in practice not so much. I am unsure of hardware mounting constraints, but it seems like using MK-19 or a bushmaster would be a little simpler than using the AGM-114K or B. But with the current hardware and training, this has a strong ability to become one of those missions that are given to navy helos and are never conducted due to a fair amount of risk aversion from the higher-ups (see CSAR). I truly hope the military as a whole finds itself using the HIGHLY trained and very motivated cadre of navy helo pilots in a way that is effective, but also allows the navy to claim some “Skin in the fight”, as for now we are not exactly doing so and there is no shortage of people controlling budget telling us so.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement