AFA: Air Force may get used UH-1Ns from Marines

Eric February 24th, 2012 at 8:56 pm

It usually is, but this is courtesy of the new fiscal environment & won’t be the last time you’ll see the other 3 services trying to out Marine the Marines in frugality.

Joe February 25th, 2012 at 8:26 am

And if they had any idea of fiscal responsibility they would get IAI’s ETOP or Sky Sapience’s HoverMast for such fixed defense points (ICBM fields) and save the taxpayer hundreds of millions. Hell, you can even use balloons for this.

And in case someone/something is spotted you can use a G-NIUS Guardium UGV or Avantguard UCGV to intercept them which can always be on station vs. having to chopper in a squad from a different location.

But then again, spending taxpayers money is easier.

Eagle Driver February 25th, 2012 at 11:33 am

Why buy UH-1Y’s when you have Blackhawks? Then you add another line to repair and maintain when you already have an established line for Blackhawks. The UH-1N and the UH-1Y are two different equipment as far as spares are concerned.

AF could have procured over 100 new UH-60M’s through the Army under an obscure federal law if not for Gates insistence on a competition which screwed up procurement plans. Whose business is it if the AF wants Blackhawks and Bell and AW want them to buy their helicopters?

And Gates does not have two pennies to put together to pay the AF for screwing their program.

Pragmatist February 25th, 2012 at 1:54 pm

The AF could cut an entire ICBM wing and consolidate its UH-1N assets (iron and flesh) to the remaining two wings and forego the Marine UH-1Ns entirely — problem solved. Nukes are being strongly considered for the chopping block and cutting 150 ICBMs from the current 450 would be prudent. The 91st at Minot would be a politically feasible choice since the western ND economy is booming due to the Bakken oil shale boom and the base would remain to support the B-52 mission (ND congressman may allow a back alley deal for some other carrot). Domestic politics and elected leaders make the big money decisions.

Eagle Driver February 25th, 2012 at 7:18 pm

Marines are good horsetraders. Just make sure they don’t steal your F-22A’s.

Vpanoptes February 25th, 2012 at 10:55 pm

Marines are probably too smart to trade for (much less steal) F-22A’s.

Phil February 26th, 2012 at 7:08 am

UH-1N is a dog.

Phil February 26th, 2012 at 7:11 am

Agree, one of the many “dumb’ leftovers from Gates’ reign. Blackhawks would have given them a more capable, reliable, maintainable helicopter. But now the USAF has to choke down sloppy seconds from the Corps.
The UH-1N is a dog, and the USAF will rue the day they were forced in to this option.

guest February 26th, 2012 at 12:21 pm

Marines say they need 3000 foot runway for the B model. Google search it, it is all over the web. The F22 has a variable nozzle, so should be able to land on the same runway. The real question is, why does the JSF B need a 3000 foot runway? Not to takeoff, but to land. Think about it.

Eagle Driver February 26th, 2012 at 7:59 pm

Saw one of those blue UH-1N’s fly over Arlington National Cemetery as I stood over a friend’s grave. Hope the AF will see fit to donate one of those handsome blue UH-1N’s to the Udvar Hazy Museum where it could be hung from the rafters for all to see.

Robert A. Fritts February 27th, 2012 at 2:07 am

You do realize this command is located in the 48 continous states? Who would the precision weapons delivery be in response to? Lost Wyoming deer hunters? Buy the most affordable civilian helicopters that can hold the security teams, throw in secure military comms and be done with it. Even used Marine helicopters will cost more than buying new civil aircraft.
Come to think of it, there are plenty of air transport service companies not doing anything on the Gulf of Mexico oil platforms who could contract this service for less than the USAF using used birds.

guest February 27th, 2012 at 5:10 am

Ok. I will list one of the links for you. http://​www​.marines​.mil/​u​n​i​t​/​h​q​m​c​/​c​m​c​/​D​o​c​u​m​e​n​t​s​/Ge…
“When evaluating runways around the globe, there are 10 times as many 3,000‐foot runways capable of handling the STOVL JSF as there are 8,000‐foot runways required for conventional fighter attack aircraft. The Marine Corps maintains the organic ability to build an expeditionary 3,000‐foot runway in a matter of days in support of STOVL missions conducted in uncertain, non-permissive or remote locations, all places where we likely expect to be employed.“
It says nothing about the C130 or any other transport or helicopter or whatever.
The JSF B takes as much runway as the F18.
Does the F22 take more than 3000 feet?

guest February 27th, 2012 at 6:07 am

Are you a disinformation specialist? Without a catapult, the JSF B needs as much runway to takeoff and land as the F18. Around 3000 ft. JSF can land vertically on a ship with little fuel and no bombs or missiles. Assuming its clutch holds up, which to date, it does not work reliably. So for land based operations, the Marine Corps is planning on using a runway and conventional landing. So why not the F22? It would be a great addition to the Corps, and more production would also benefit the Air Force.
If the landing requirement of a C130, whatever it is, set the minimum length for a runway, there would be no advantage of the JSF over the F18 in terms of availability of airfields. Which it turns out, there is no advantage anyway.

Chaostician February 27th, 2012 at 11:03 am

I think this move is representative of how much USAF leaders take the nuclear mission for granted and do not properly recapitalize the mission, resulting in an increasingly dysfunctional organization. It seems they are willing to ignore all kinds of risk and attempt to do most missions on the cheap, but when it comes to tacair modernization, no cost is too much to provide marginal improvements in capabilities we already have overmatch in. Tell me… how inspiring a message this is to the strategic nuclear warriors that they will not get recapitalized with new helicopters that will help improve their mission, but instead are expected to soldier along with antiquated, obsolete systems? How does an organization expect to retain quality professionals in mission areas where they are continually treated as second-class citizens? With its strategic resourcing decisions, USAF proves time and again that it is dominated by a bunch of snobby fighter pilots who cannot manage their organization’s requirements.

Scot7 February 27th, 2012 at 12:22 pm

The Marines should have traded for A-10s. Now there’s some whupass with wings!

TGR February 27th, 2012 at 8:48 pm

I heard through RUMINT that the Marines are getting the best deal since now they don’t have to pay to mothball the helos, they are just giving them the the USAF to deal with them

James Youngblood February 29th, 2012 at 9:48 pm

I would agree with your assessment if it was just a matter of transporting troops to the LCC facilities throughout the states. I am sure the Air Force would like to have a little more flexibility, as you never know what can happen at one of these launch facilities as shown here: http://​www​.cufon​.org/​c​u​f​o​n​/​m​a​l​m​s​t​r​o​m​/​m​a​l​m​1​.​htm

Lem Genovese February 29th, 2012 at 10:55 pm

Maintenance hours = flight time. The HUEY’s numbers speak for themselves. They make the Black Hawk look pale by comparison. Upgrade, maintain and keep ‘em flying The most cost effective helicopter ever built.

Michael852 March 1st, 2012 at 3:05 am

Some of these posts are getting to the point. The Air Force is run by fighter jocks. When SAC went away and was folded into ACC along with TAC, with TAC fighter jocks running ACC, any thing that had a nuclear mission went to the back burner. Nobody at Air Force or ACC cared until problems started to happen, then all the finger pointing started. The same thing with these Helo problems. You would think squadrons that are in direct support of a nuclear mission would have all weather helicopters that have the range and load capability to handle any situation that came along. In addition the Helo used would be one that the aircrews would have the ability to have a border range of assignments.

TJRedneck March 1st, 2012 at 7:00 am

The Huey is still a great work horse chopper, and in some cases better suited for certain jobs than the blackhawk. The fact that the Marines still use them as well as the Cobras is a testimate to how good they still are. The Marines could have gone to the blackhawks, but instead went for the upgraded Hueys. These Hueys are not the Vietnam era Hueys, they are much improved and can still be upgraded even better.

Ron K. March 2nd, 2012 at 5:18 am

The Huey UH-1N is one of the finest helo’s ever built—EVER!!
I had logged over 4,000 hours in that superb machine. I piloted the H-19, and later the UH-1F in missile crew support and in Vietnam combat. In Washington D.C. I flew the H-21, CH-3 and UH-1N. I instructed ground school, was flight instructor, and Maintenance Test Pilot, and carried Vice-President Agnew in that craft, and can tell you for sure that the “N” is simply tops for reliability, simplicity, and ruggedness!..
Yes, I know, the “N” was the latest in helo evolution for that period, but even so, it out-performed the CH-3 anyday! If you lost an engine in the CH-3, at sea-level altitude and unloaded, you WOULD descend! With the “N” losing an engine, the remaining single-engine’s power would automatically increase from 640 to 920 HP, and the pilot would hardly even notice a degraded flight performance, fully loaded! …and as an additional note,..the CH-3 mechanical flight controls stopped at the hydraulic ‘Broom Closet” and hydraulics took over to operate the flight controls. The “N”, on the other hand, had physical flight control-rods extending all the way back to the rotor head, that were additionally hydraulically assisted, giving the pilot full control of the rotor head in the event of complete hydraulic failure,…not so in the CH-3..in that airframe, simply kiss your ‘you-know-what’ goodbye if hydraulics failed!..

Guest Commenter March 29th, 2012 at 8:15 pm

@ Sandhills…part of the problem with your post is the source (one AF Huey Pilot) as one AF Huey Pilot myself and one who has a little more seasoning than the one I am sure you spoke with since I am intimately familiar with the composition of our crew force and probably know the young pilot you spoke with by name. The problem with taking information from one young disgruntled first assignment flyer does not paint a complete picture…nor will I paint one here for reasons obvious to anyone familiar with nuclear security. I will correct a couple of things

1) these aircraft and the crews that fly them are capable of flying in all weather conditions but the Huey has the same icing limitations it has always had and it doesn’t take a couple weeks to make it from the depot with a competent pilot (and this specific statement helps me focus in on who you talked to so thank you for that)

2) These pilots are lot more than taxi drivers for the Security Forces…they are and integral part of the security team and receive intensive training to hone them to the highest level of tactical skills necessary to employ themselves and their SF brethren in a elastic combat environment. Long gone are the days of playing tundra taxi to missileers and “SPs” (coincidently the term SP disappeared about 15 years ago)

3) Huey pilots are not limited to just the Missile bases they are also based at Andrews, Yakota, Kirtland, Ft Rucker, Hurlburt Field, Eglin, as well as transition to the HH-60, the CV-22 and have opportunities to become test pilots, C-12 pilots and various other assignments around the Air Force. In fact it is rare for a young pilot to flow directly from missile base to missile base.

4) There have always been morale issue with these young bucks at this point in their flying careers…we even have a name for it…Pissed Lieutenant Syndrome…I’m not saying it might not be a little worse than in the past with the pressure they are under now but it is not new and us older heads try to keep a lid on it and redirect it and keep them focused on the mission

5) Yep you are correct that there isn’t a flyer O-6 in our direct chain of command until you get to the MAJCOM but then in many of the cases over the years I have seen we have been able to create pretty good working relationships with the non-flying Col’s we work with and educate them on our business. They admit what they don’t know and trust us to do what we need to do and ask smart questions…not always, some of them have the smartest man in the room disease and we weather the storm until them next arrives, but I have also served in organizations with flying O-6 commanders and I can tell you that you get idiots in those organizations too…wings are not a shield against stupidity or an automatic gateway to understanding…give me a non-flying O-6 that will listen and ask questions any day over a flyer who knows it all any day.

6) Finally the issue of “breaking regulations about crew rest to accomplish the mission.” What you see depends on where you set. If this is happening, and I highly doubt it, it is stupid irresponsible and completely unnecessary. I personally know all the commanders, directors of operations and assistant directors of operations for all three of these squadrons as well as all of the staff offices at both of the higher headquarters involved and I know that none of these individuals are asking anyone to do such a thing. If a young officer or enlisted flyer is breaking crew rest to meet the requirements of any of the missions they have in unit they are doing themselves, their unit, the Air Force Global Strike Command, the United States Air Force, and the American people a disservice by misrepresenting their capability to their commanders and their higher headquarters. Please contact the pilot you spoke with and pass that message along. Ask them to tell their commander they were breaking crew rest to meet alert requirements and if they are not milling to do that they knew it was wrong and to stop doing it. They have a responsibility to be honorable and tell the truth and that included telling their commander how much time it takes to carry out a mission.

Very Respectfully
A Guest Who Knows Something About Which They Speak